chapter fifteen Population, Urbanization, and Environmentmyresource.phoenix.edu/secure/resource/SOC120R3/... · 418 chapter 15 population, urbanization, and environment T here’s

c h a p t e r f i f t e e n

Population,Urbanization,

and Environment

Why do many people worry about the rapid rate

of global population increase?

What are the special experiences of city living?

How is the state of the natural environment

a social issue?

MACIMC15_0000000000.QXP.U 11/12/04 2:06 PM Page 416

ISB

N:0-536 -12116 -8

Society: The Basics, Eighth Edition by John J. Macionis. Published by Prentice-Hall. Copyright © 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc.

Societies with more people and ever-larger cities challenge the natural environment as never before. To protect herself from air pollution in an industrial area

of Chekka, Lebanon, this girl carries a face mask on her way to school.

▲


ISB

N:0

-536

-121

16-8


418 chapter 15 population, urbanization, and environment

There’s not much choice when people decide to eat out in

Bisbee, North Dakota: The Chocolate Shop is the only place

in town. Sylvia Schmidt, who has lived in Bisbee all her

life, owns the small eatery. Shaking her head, she explains that

she loses money every day she serves hot food to the small number

of locals and an occasional visitor who passes through town. But she has enough saved to get by,

and so although she’s past what most folks call retirement age, she keeps the business going if

only because she can’t bear the thought of her town folding up. Thinking back, she says with a

smile, “You can’t imagine what it used to be like.”

Bisbee is indeed in decline. The town now has just 227 people, down from about 300 ten

years ago, making the population lower than when Bisbee was a frontier town in the mid-1800s.

Pettsinger’s movie house closed long ago, Brannon’s Drug Store is gone, and Dick’s Red Owl no

longer sells groceries. The local church can no longer afford the salary of a priest. The local high

school has just sixty-nine students; the elementary school, thirty-one. Houses in Bisbee sell for as

little as $2,000, yet no one is moving in.

Bob Weltin also grew up in Bisbee and at forty-three is now the town’s mayor. But as he

sips a cup of Sylvia’s coffee at the Chocolate Shop, he says that he has decided to call it quits,

stepping down as mayor and moving to a larger community (Johnson, 2001).

There are hundreds of towns like Bisbee on the GreatPlains that are hanging on by a thread. This chapter inves-tigates population patterns, explaining why people movefrom place to place, why cities get so large, and why smalltowns sometimes die. We shall also look at how popula-tions change and how our way of life affects the physicalenvironment.

Demography: The Study of PopulationWhen humans first began to cultivate plants some 12,000years ago, the Earth’s entire population was about 5 million,or about the population of Minnesota today. Very slowgrowth pushed the total in 1 B.C.E. to perhaps 300 million,or a bit more than the population of today’s United States(Haub, 2002a).

About 1750, world population began to spike upward.We now add 73 million people to the planet each year, for atotal of 6.4 billion in 2005.

The causes and consequences of this drama are the focusof demography, the study of human population. Demography

(from Greek, meaning “description of people”) is a cousin ofsociology that analyzes the size and composition of a popula-tion and studies how people move from place to place.Demographers not only collect statistics but also pose impor-tant questions about the effects of population growth andsuggest how it might be controlled. The following sectionspresent basic demographic concepts.

FERTILITYThe study of human population begins with how manypeople are born. Fertility is the incidence of childbearing ina country’s population. During her childbearing years, fromthe onset of menstruation (typically in the early teens) tomenopause (usually in the late forties), a woman is capableof bearing more than twenty children. But fecundity, ormaximum possible childbearing, is sharply reduced by cul-tural norms, finances, and personal choice.

Demographers describe fertility using the crude birthrate, the number of live births in a given year for every 1,000people in a population. To calculate a crude birth rate, dividethe number of live births in a year by the society’s total pop-ulation and multiply the result by 1,000. In the United


ISB

N:0 -536 -12116-8


population, urbanization, and environment chapter 15 419

FIGURE 15–1 (a) Crude Birth Rates and Crude Death Rates,(b) Infant Mortality Rates, and (c) Life Expectancy, 2003

1United States and Canada.2Australia, New Zealand, and South Pacific Islands.

Source: Population Reference Bureau (2004).

GLOBAL SNAPSHOT

0

10

20

30

40

50

21

9

14

810

12

7 7

2022

6

38

14

Wor

ldN

orth

Am

eric

a1

Euro

peO

cean

ia2

Asi

aLa

tin A

mer

ica

and

the

Car

ibbe

anA

fric

a

Bir

th/D

eath

Rat

es (p

er 1

,000

pop

ulat

ion)

Infa

nt M

orta

lity

in F

irst

Yea

r (p

er 1

,000

live

bir

ths)

0

30

60

90

20

50

80

10

40

70

100

Wor

ld

56

Nor

th A

mer

ica

1

7

Euro

peO

cean

ia2

29

Asi

aLa

tin A

mer

ica

and

the

Car

ibbe

an

54

Afr

ica

90

Life

Exp

ecta

ncy

(in y

ears

)

0

30

60

20

50

80

10

40

70

Wor

ld

67

Nor

th A

mer

ica

1

78

Euro

pe

74

Oce

ania

2

75

Asi

aLa

tin A

mer

ica

and

the

Car

ibbe

an

67

Afr

ica

72

52

CrudeDeath Rate

CrudeBirth Rate

26

7

17

States in 2002, there were 4.0 million live births in a popu-lation of 288 million, yielding a crude birth rate of 13.9(Martin et al., 2003).

January 18, Coshocton County, Ohio.Having just finished off the mountains of meat and potatoes that make up a typ-

ical Amish meal, we have gathered in the living roomof Jacob Raber, a member of this rural Amish community. Mrs. Raber, a mother of four, is telling usabout Amish life. “Most of the women I know havefive or six children,” she says with a smile, “but cer-tainly not everybody. Some have eleven or twelve!”

A country’s birth rate is described as “crude” because itis based on the entire population, not just women in theirchildbearing years. Furthermore, this measure ignores dif-ferences among various categories of the population: Fertil-ity among the Amish, for example, is quite high, and fertilityamong Asian Americans is low. But this measure is easy tocalculate and allows rough comparisons of the fertility ofone country or region in relation to others. Figure 15–1shows that in global perspective, the crude birth rate ofNorth Americans is low.

MORTALITYPopulation size also reflects mortality, the incidence of deathin a country’s population. To measure mortality, demogra-phers use a crude death rate, the number of deaths in a givenyear for every 1,000 people in a population. This time, we takethe number of deaths in a year, divide by the total population,and multiply the result by 1,000. In 2002, there were 2.45 mil-lion deaths in the U.S. population of 288 million, yielding acrude death rate of 8.5 (Kochanek et al., 2004). As Figure 15–1shows, in global context, this rate is about average.

A third useful demographic measure is the infant mor-tality rate, the number of deaths among infants under one yearof age for each 1,000 live births in a given year. To computeinfant mortality, divide the number of deaths of childrenunder one year of age by the number of live births during the same year and multiply the result by 1,000. In 2002, therewere 28,000 infant deaths and 4.0 million live births in theUnited States. Dividing the first number by the second andmultiplying the result by 1,000 yields an infant mortality rateof 7.0. The second part of Figure 15–1 indicates that byworld standards, North American infant mortality is low.

But remember the differences among various categoriesof people. For example, African Americans, with nearly threetimes the burden of poverty as whites, have an infant mor-tality rate of 14.4—more than twice the white rate of 5.8.


ISB

N:0

-536

-121

16-8



Change in Population,1990 to 2000

25.0% to 49.9%13.2% to 24.9%Gain up to 13.1%Loss up to 10.0%Loss 10.1% to 42.3%

Gain 50.0% to 191.0%

ARIZONA

NEVADA

CALIFORNIA

OREGON

WASHINGTON

IDAHO

MONTANANORTH

DAKOTA MINNESOTA

SOUTHDAKOTA

NEBRASKA

WYOMING

COLORADO

NEWMEXICO

TEXASLOUISIANA

ARKANSASOKLAHOMA

KANSAS MISSOURI

IOWA

WISCONSIN

MICHIGAN

ILLINOIS

INDIANA OHIO

KENTUCKY

TENNESSEE

MISSISSIPPIALABAMA

GEORGIA

SOUTHCAROLINA

NORTHCAROLINA

VIRGINIAD.C.

WESTVIRGINIA

DELAWARE

NEW JERSEY

MARYLAND

PENNSYLVANIA

NEWYORK

CONNECTICUTRHODE ISLAND

MASSACHUSETTS

MAINEVERMONT

NEW HAMPSHIRE

FLORIDA

UTAH

ALASKA

HAWAII

SEEING OURSELVESNATIONAL MAP 15–1

Population Change across the United States

This map, based on results of the 2000 census,shows that population is moving from the heart-land of the United States toward the coasts.What do you think is causing this internalmigration? What types of people do you thinkremain in counties that are losing population?

Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2001).

Low infant mortality greatly raises life expectancy,the average life span of a country’s population. U.S. malesborn in 2002 can expect to live 74.5 years, and females canlook forward to 79.9 years. As the third part of Figure 15–1shows, life expectancy for North Americans is twenty-fiveyears greater than that typical of low-income countries ofAfrica.

MIGRATIONPopulation size is also affected by migration, the movementof people into and out of a specified territory. Movement intoa territory, or immigration, is measured as an in-migrationrate, calculated as the number of people entering an area forevery 1,000 people in the population. Movement out of aterritory, or emigration, is measured in terms of an out-migration rate, the number leaving for every 1,000 people.Both types of migration usually occur at the same time, ofcourse, and the difference between the in-migration rateand the out-migration rate is called the net migration rate.

All nations experience some degree of internal migra-tion, that is, movement within their borders, from oneregion to another. National Map 15–1 shows where the U.S.population is moving and the places being left behind(notice the heavy losses in North Dakota, as suggested in theopening story for this chapter).

Migration is sometimes voluntary, as when peopleleave a dying town to move to a large city. In such cases,“push-pull” factors are usually at work, as a lack of jobs“pushes” people to move from one area as they are “pulled”

to another place with more opportunities. Migration canalso be involuntary, such as the forced transport of 10 mil-lion Africans to the Western Hemisphere as slaves.

POPULATION GROWTHFertility, mortality, and migration all affect the size of asociety’s population. In general, rich nations (such as theUnited States) grow almost as much from immigration asnatural increase; poorer nations (such as India) growalmost entirely from natural increase.

To calculate a population’s natural growth rate, demog-raphers subtract the crude death rate from the crude birthrate. The natural growth rate of the U.S. population in 2002was 5.4 per 1,000 (the crude birth rate of 13.9 minus thecrude death rate of 8.5), or about 0.5 percent annualgrowth.

Global Map 15–1 shows that population growth in theUnited States and other high-income nations is well belowthe world average of 1.3 percent. The Earth’s low-growthcontinents are Europe (currently posting a slight decline,expressed as 20.2 percent annual growth), North America(0.5 percent), and Oceania (1.0 percent). At the global aver-age is Asia (1.3 percent), with Latin America (1.6 percent)slightly higher. The highest-growth region of the world isAfrica (2.4 percent).

A handy rule for estimating population growth is todivide 70 by a society’s population growth rate to calculatethe doubling time in years. Thus, an annual growth rate of 2 percent (found in parts of Latin America) doubles a


ISB

N:0-536 -12116-8



W I N D O W O N T H E W O R L DGLOBAL MAP 15–1 Population Growth in Global Perspective

The richest countries of the world—including the United States, Canada, and the nations of Europe—have growth ratesbelow 1 percent. The nations of Latin America and Asia typically have growth rates around 1.6 percent, which doublea population in forty-four years. Africa has an overall growth rate of 2.4 percent (despite only small increases in coun-tries with a high rate of AIDS), which cuts the doubling time to twenty-nine years. In global perspective, we see that asociety’s standard of living is closely related to its rate of population growth: Population is rising fastest in the worldregions that can least afford to support more people.

Source: Population Reference Bureau (2004); map projection from Peters Atlas of the World (1990).

SERBIA-MONT.

MAC.

CZECHREP. SLOV.

SLOVENIACROATIA

BOSNIA-HERZ.

ERITREA

A N T A R C T I C A

TUVALU

WESTERNSAMOA

FIJI

TONGANEW CALEDONIA

NEWZEALAND

AUSTRALIA

SOLOMONISLANDSPAPUA

NEW GUINEA

VANUATU

KIRIBATI

MARSHALLISLANDSFEDERATED STATES

OF MICRONESIA

NAURU

JAPAN

N. KOREAS. KOREA

KAZAKHSTAN

MONGOLIAUZBEKISTAN

KYRGYZSTAN

OMAN

PAKIS

TAN

AFGHANIS

TAN PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC

OF CHINA

NEPAL BHUTAN

TAJIKISTAN

IRAN

MALAYSIA

BRUNEI

I N D O N E S I A

EAST TIMOR

SINGAPORE

CAMBODIASRILANKA

VIETNAM

PHILIPPINES

TAIWAN, REPUBLIC OF CHINA

INDIA

BANGLADESHLAOS

THAILAND

MY

AN

MA

R

MAURITIUS

MADAGASCAR

SOUTH

AFRICA LESOTHO

SWAZILAND

NAMIBIA

BOTSWANA

MOZAMBIQUE

ZIMBABWE

ZAMBIA MALAWI

MALDIVES

SEYCHELLES

COMOROS

TANZANIA

SÃO TOMÉ& PRINCIPE

RWANDA

BURUNDI

KENYA

ANGOLA

GABON

CONGO

EQUATORIALGUINEA

UGANDACAMEROON

SOMALIA

CENT.AFR.REP.

ETHIOPIA

DJIBOUTI

SUDANCHAD YEMEN

KUWAIT

NIG

ERIA

NIGER

BENIN

IVORYCOAST TOGO

MAURITANIA

SENEGAL

GAMBIA

GUINEA-BISSAUGUINEA

SIERRA LEONE

LIBERIA GH

AN

A

MA

L I

BURKINAFASO

CAPE VERDE

SAUDIARABIA

EGYPT

LIBYA

U.A.E.

ALGERIAWESTERN

SAHARA

MO

ROCC

O

ESTONIALATVIALITHUANIA

ALB.

FINLANDSWEDEN

ST. VINCENT

ME

XI C

O

BAHAMAS

TRINIDAD & TOBAGO

ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA

DOMINICAGUADELOUPE

MARTINIQUEST. LUCIA

ST. KITTS- NEVIS

BARBADOSGRENADA

GUYANA

FRENCH GUIANASURINAME

BO

LIVIA

PA

RA

GU

AY

AR

GE

NT

INA

CO

LO

MB

I A

B R A Z I L

PE

RU

URUGUAY

CHILE

ECUADOR

HAITIJAMAICA

NICARAGUA

CUBA

DOMINICANREPUBLIC

GUATEMALA

EL SALVADOR

BELIZEHONDURAS

COSTA RICA

PANAMAVENEZUELA

PUERTO RICO

U.S.

U.S.

UNITED STATESOF

AMERICA

C A N A D A

ICELAND

GREENLANDNORWAY

DENMARK

GREATBRITAIN

IRELAND

MALTA

JORDAN

IRAQ

BAHRAINQATAR

ISRAELLEBANON

SYRIA

TURKEYTURKMENISTAN

AZERBAIJAN

ARMENIA

GEORGIA

UKRAINEMOLDOVA

BELARUS

GREECE

POLAND

ROM.

BUL.

HUNG.

CYPRUSTUNISIA

PORTUGAL

GERM.NETH.BEL.

LUX.SWITZ.

ITALYFRANCE

AUS.

SPAIN

HONG KONGMACAO

RUSSIAN FEDERATION

DEM.REP.

OF THECONGO

60°

40°

20°

0°

20°

40°

60°

180°160°140°120°100°80°60°40°20°0°20°60° 40°80°100°120°140°160°

40°

20°

0°

20°

40°

60°

Annual Population Growth

3.0 percent and higher

2.0 to 2.9 percent

1.0 to 1.9 percent

Below 1.0 percent

population in thirty-five years, and a 3 percent growth rate(found in some countries in Africa) drops the doubling timeto just twenty-four years. The rapid population growth ofthe poorest countries is deeply troubling because thesecountries can barely support the populations they have now.

POPULATION COMPOSITION

Demographers also study the makeup of a society’s popula-tion at a given point in time. One variable is the sex ratio, thenumber of males for every 100 females in a nation’s population.


ISB

N:0

-536

-121

16-8



0%5%15% 15%5%

United States Mexico

10% 10%0%5%15% 15%5%10% 10%

80 and older

70–79

60–69

50–59

40–49

0–9

80 and older

70–79

60–69

50–59

40–49

30–39

20–29

10–19

0–9

30–39

20–29

10–19

FemaleMale

FIGURE 15–2 Age-Sex Population Pyramids for the United States and Mexico,2003


In 2002, the sex ratio in the United States was 96, or 96 malesfor every 100 females. Sex ratios usually are below 100because, on average, women outlive men. In India, however,the sex ratio is 107 because parents value sons more thandaughters and may either abort a female fetus or, after birth,give more care to a male infant, raising the odds that a femalechild will die.

A more complex measure is the age-sex pyramid, agraphic representation of the age and sex of a population.Figure 15–2 presents the age-sex pyramids for the UnitedStates and Mexico. Higher death rates as people age give thesefigures a rough pyramid shape. In the U.S. pyramid, the bulgecorresponding to ages forty through forty-nine reflects highbirth rates during the baby boom. The contraction justbelow—that is, people in their thirties—reflects the subse-quent baby bust. The birth rate has continued to decline fromits high of 25.3 in 1957 to 13.9 in 2002.

Comparing the U.S. and Mexican age-sex pyramidsshows different demographic trends. The age-sex pyramidfor Mexico, like that of other lower-income nations, is wideat the bottom (reflecting higher birth rates) and narrowsquickly by what we would call middle age (due to higher

mortality). In short, Mex-ico is a much youngersociety, with a median ageof twenty-four, compared

to thirty-five in the United States. With a larger share ofwomen still in their childbearing years, therefore, Mexico’s

crude birth rate (25) is nearly twice our own (13.9), and itsannual rate of population growth (2.1 percent) is more thanfour times the U.S. rate (0.5 percent).

History and Theory of Population GrowthIn the past, people wanted large families because humanlabor was the key to productivity. Moreover, until rubbercondoms appeared 150 years ago, preventing pregnancy wasuncertain at best. But high death rates from infectious dis-eases put a constant brake on population growth.

A major demographic shift, shown in Figure 15–3, beganabout 1750 as the world’s population turned upward, reachingthe 1 billion mark by 1800. This milestone (which took all ofhuman history to reach) was matched barely a century later in1930, when a second billion people were added to the planet.In other words, not only was population increasing, but therate of growth was accelerating. Global population reached3 billion by 1962 (just thirty-two years later) and 4 billion by1974 (only twelve years later). The rate of world populationincrease has slowed recently, but the planet passed the 5 billionmark in 1987 and the 6 billion mark late in 1999. In no previ-ous century did the world’s population even double. In thetwentieth century, it quadrupled.

Currently, the world is gaining 73 million people eachyear, with 96 percent of this increase in poor countries.

To find out more about U.S.demography, go to http://www.census.gov


ISB

N:0-536 -12116-8



0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

To

tal W

orl

d P

op

ula

tio

n (i

n b

illio

ns)

21002050200019501900185018001750

Year

Entire world

Poornations

Rich nations

(projected)1700

FIGURE 15–3 The Increase in World Population,1700–2100

Experts predict that the Earth’s population will be between8 and 9 billion in 2050 (O’Neill & Balk, 2001). Given theworld’s troubles feeding its present population, such anincrease is a matter of urgent concern.

MALTHUSIAN THEORYThe sudden population growth 250 years ago sparked thedevelopment of demography. Thomas Robert Malthus(1766–1834), an English economist and clergyman, warnedthat rapid population increase would lead to social chaos.Malthus (1926, orig. 1798) calculated that populationwould increase by what mathematicians call geometric pro-gression, illustrated by the series of numbers 2, 4, 8, 16, 32,and so on. At such a rate, Malthus concluded, world popu-lation would soon soar out of control.

Food production would also increase, Malthusexplained, but only in arithmetic progression (as in the series2, 3, 4, 5, 6, etc.) because even with new agricultural tech-nology, farmland is limited. Thus, Malthus presented atroubling vision of the future: people reproducing beyondwhat the planet could feed, leading ultimately to widespreadstarvation and war over what resources were left.

Malthus recognized that artificial birth control orabstaining from sex might change his prediction. But hefound one morally wrong and the other quite impractical.Thus, famine and war stalked humanity in Malthus’s mind,and he was justly known as “the dismal parson.”

Critical review. Fortunately, Malthus’s prediction wasflawed. First, by 1850, the European birth rate began todrop, partly because with industrialization, children werebecoming an economic liability rather than an asset andpartly because people began using artificial birth control.Second, Malthus underestimated human ingenuity: Mod-ern irrigation techniques, fertilizers, and pesticides haveincreased farm production far more than he could haveimagined.

Some criticized Malthus for ignoring the role of socialinequality in world abundance and famine. For example,Karl Marx (1967, orig. 1867) objected to his view of suffer-ing as a “law of nature” rather than the curse of capitalism.More recently, “critical demographers” claim that sayingpoverty is caused by a high birth rate in low-income coun-tries amounts to blaming the victims. On the contrary, theysee global inequality as the real issue (Horton, 1999;Kuumba, 1999).

Still, Malthus offers an important lesson. Habitableland, clean water, and fresh air are limited resources, andincreased economic productivity has taken a heavy toll onthe natural environment. In addition, medical advances

have lowered death rates, pushing up world population. Inprinciple, of course, no level of population growth can goon forever. Thus, people everywhere must become aware ofthe dangers of population increase.

DEMOGRAPHIC TRANSITION THEORYA more complex analysis of population change isdemographic transition theory, the thesis that populationpatterns reflect a society’s level of technological development.Figure 15–4 on page 424 shows the demographic conse-quences at four levels of technological development. Prein-dustrial, agrarian societies (Stage 1) have high birth ratesbecause of the economic value of children and the absenceof birth control. Death rates are also high due to low livingstandards and limited medical technology. Outbreaks ofdisease neutralize births, so population rises and falls withonly a modest overall increase. This was the case for thou-sands of years in Europe before the Industrial Revolution.

Stage 2, the onset of industrialization, brings a demo-graphic transition as death rates fall due to greater foodsupplies and scientific medicine. But birth rates remainhigh, resulting in rapid population growth. It was duringEurope’s Stage 2 that Malthus formulated his ideas, which


ISB

N:0

-536

-121

16-8



accounts for his pessimistic view of the future. The world’spoorest countries today are in this high-growth stage.

In Stage 3, a mature industrial economy, the birth ratedrops, curbing population growth once again. Fertility fallsbecause most children survive to adulthood and becausehigh living standards make raising children expensive. Inshort, affluence transforms children from economic assetsinto economic liabilities. Smaller families, made possible byeffective birth control, are also favored by women workingoutside the home. As birth rates follow death rates down-ward, population growth slows further.

Stage 4 corresponds to a postindustrial economy inwhich the demographic transition is complete. The birthrate remains low, partly because two-income couples grad-ually become the norm and partly because the cost of rais-ing children continues to increase. This trend, coupled withsteady death rates, means that population grows only veryslowly or even decreases. This is the case today in Japan,Europe, and the United States.

Critical review. Demographic transition theory suggeststhat the key to population control lies in technology. Insteadof the runaway population increase feared by Malthus, thistheory sees technology slowing growth and spreading mate-rial plenty.

Demographic transition theory is linked to moderniza-tion theory, one approach to global development discussedin Chapter 9 (“Global Stratification”). Modernization theo-rists are optimistic that poor countries will solve their pop-ulation problems as they industrialize. But critics, notablydependency theorists, strongly disagree. Without a signifi-cant redistribution of global resources, they maintain, ourplanet will become increasingly divided into industrialized“haves,” enjoying low population growth, and nonindustri-alized “have-nots,” struggling in vain to feed more andmore people.

GLOBAL POPULATION TODAY: A BRIEF SURVEYWhat can we say about population in today’s world? Drawing on the discussion so far, we can identify importantpatterns and reach several conclusions.

The low-growth North. When the Industrial Revolutionbegan in the Northern Hemisphere, population growth inWestern Europe and North America was a high 3 percent

annually. But in the cen-turies since, the growthrate steadily declined andin 1970 fell below 1 per-

cent. As our postindustrial society settles into Stage 4, theU.S. birth rate is less than the replacement level of 2.1 chil-dren per woman, a point demographers call zero popula-tion growth, the level of reproduction that maintainspopulation at a steady state. More than sixty nations, almostall of them rich, are at or below the point of zero populationgrowth.

Factors holding down population in these postindus-trial societies include a high proportion of men and womenin the labor force, rising costs of raising children, trendstoward later marriage and singlehood, and widespread useof contraceptives and abortion.

In high-income nations, then, population increase isnot the problem that it is in poor countries. Indeed, manygovernments in high-income countries are concernedabout a future problem of underpopulation, because declin-ing population size may be difficult to reverse and becausethe swelling ranks of the elderly have fewer and fewer youngpeople to look to for support in old age (McDonald, 2001;Kent & Mather, 2002).

The high-growth South. Population is a critical problemin poor nations of the Southern Hemisphere. No nation inthe world lacks industrial technology entirely; demographic

FIGURE 15–4

Demographic Transition Theory

Birth RateDeath Rate

NaturalIncrease

Level ofTechnology

PopulationGrowth

Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4

Preindustrial Early Industrial MatureIndustrial Postindustrial

Very Slow Rapid Slowing Very Slow

To find out more about popula-tion growth, go to http://www.populationconnection.org


ISB

N:0-536 -12116-8



Fertility in the United States has fallen during thepast century and is now quite low. But somecategories of the U.S. population have muchhigher fertility rates. One example is the Amish, a religious society living in rural areas of Ohio,Pennsylvania, and other states. It is common forAmish couples to have five, six, or more children.Why do you think the Amish favor large families?

transition theory’s Stage 1 applies just to remote rural areasof low-income nations. But much of Latin America, Africa,and Asia is at Stage 2, with a mix of agrarian and industrialeconomies. Advanced medical technology, supplied by richsocieties, has sharply reduced death rates, but birth ratesremain high. This is why poor societies now account fortwo-thirds of the Earth’s people and 96 percent of globalpopulation increase.

In poor countries throughout the world, birth rateshave fallen from an average of about six children perwoman in 1950 to about four today. But fertility this highwill only intensify global poverty. At a 1994 global popula-tion conference in Cairo, delegates from 180 nations agreedthat a key element in controlling world population growthis to raise the status of women. The Diversity box on page426 takes a closer look.

In recent decades, the world has made significantprogress in lowering fertility. Mortality also has come down.Although few people would oppose medical programs thatsave lives—most of them children’s—lower death rates

mean rising population.In fact, populationgrowth in most low-income regions of the

world results mostly from falling death rates. Around 1920,Europe and North America began taking steps to spread sci-entific medicine and better nutrition around the world.Since then, inoculations against infectious diseases and theuse of antibiotics and insecticides have pushed down deathrates with stunning effectiveness. For example, in Sri Lanka,malaria caused half of all deaths in the 1930s; a decade later,use of insecticides to kill malaria-carrying mosquitoes cut

the death toll from this disease in half. Although this is agreat medical achievement, Sri Lanka’s population began tosoar. Similarly, India’s infant mortality rate slid from 130 in1975 to 64 in 2003, boosting that nation’s population overthe 1 billion mark.

In short, in much of the world, mortality is falling,especially among children. In order to limit populationgrowth, the world—especially poor countries—must con-trol births as successfully as it is fending off death.

Urbanization: The Growth of CitiesOctober 8, Hong Kong. The cable traingrinds to the top of Victoria Peak, wherewe behold one of the world’s most spec-

tacular vistas: the city of Hong Kong at night. A mil-lion bright, colorful lights ring the harbor as ships,ferries, and traditional Chinese junks churn by. Fewcities match Hong Kong for sheer energy: This smallcity is as economically productive as the state of Wis-consin or the nation of Finland. We could sit here forhours entranced by the spectacle of Hong Kong.

Throughout most of human history, the sights andsounds of great cities such as Hong Kong, New York, andLos Angeles were simply unimaginable. Our distant ances-tors lived in small, nomadic groups, moving from place toplace as they depleted vegetation or hunted migratorygame. The small settlements that marked the emergence ofcivilization in the Middle East some 12,000 years ago held

Read about population controlin South Asia at http://www.asia-initiative.org/


ISB

N:0

-536

-121

16-8



only a small fraction of the Earth’s people. Today, the largestthree or four cities of the world hold as many people as theentire planet did back then.

Urbanization is the concentration of humanity intocities. Urbanization both redistributes population within asociety and transforms many patterns of social life. We willtrace these changes in terms of three urban revolutions: theemergence of cities beginning 10,000 years ago, the devel-opment of industrial cities after 1750, and the explosivegrowth of cities in poor countries today.

THE EVOLUTION OF CITIESCities are a relatively new development in human history.Only about 12,000 years ago did our ancestors begin foundingpermanent settlements, which paved the way for the firsturban revolution.

The first cities. Hunting and gathering forced people tomove all the time; however, once our ancestors discoveredhow to domesticate animals and cultivate crops, they wereable to stay in one place. Raising their own food also created

D I V E R S I T Y: R A C E , C L A S S , & G E N D E R


Sohad Ahmad lives with her hus-band in a farming village 50 milessouth of Cairo, Egypt’s capital city.

Ahmad lives a poor life, like hundredsof millions of other women in theworld. Yet her situation differs in animportant respect: She has had onlytwo children and will have no more.

Why do Ahmad and her husbandreject the conventional wisdom thatchildren are an economic asset? Onepart of the answer is that Egypt’s grow-ing population has already createdsuch a demand for land thatAhmad’s family could not affordmore even if they had the childrento farm it. But the main reason isthat she does not want her lifedefined only by childbearing.

Like Ahmad, more women inEgypt are taking control of theirfertility and seeking educationaland economic opportunities.Indeed, this country has madegreat progress in reducing itsannual population growth from3.0 percent just ten years ago to2.0 percent today.

With its focus on raising thestanding of women, the 1994 Cairoconference on global populationbroke new ground. Past population

control programs simply tried to makebirth control technology available towomen, a vital effort because only halfof the world’s married women useeffective birth control. But even withavailable birth control, population con-tinues to swell in societies that definewomen’s primary responsibility as rais-ing children.

Dr. Nafis Sadik, an Egyptianwoman who heads the United Nations’efforts at population control, sums upthe new approach to lowering birth

rates this way: Give women more lifechoices, and they will have fewer chil-dren. In other words, women withaccess to schooling and jobs, who candecide when and whether to marry,and who bear children as a matter ofchoice will limit their own fertility.Schooling must be available to olderwomen, too, Sadik adds, because eld-ers exercise great influence in localcommunities.

Evidence from countries aroundthe world supports the idea that con-

trolling population and raising thesocial standing of women are oneand the same.

WHAT DO YOU THINK?

1. Why do many analysts claimthat controlling populationdepends on expanding women’schoices?

2. What specific laws or programscan you think of that mightreduce women’s childbearing?

3. Is population control an issuefor people in both rich and poorcountries? Explain your view.

Sources: Ashford (1995), Axinn & Barber (2001),and Population Reference Bureau (2004).

Empowering Women: The Key to Controlling Population Growth

A simple truth: Women who have more opportunityfor schooling and paid work have fewer children. Asmore women attend school in traditional societies,the fertility rate in these countries is falling.


ISB

N:0-536 -12116-8



In the cities of the early industrial era, life was lived on thestreets. This street scene in New York City almost a century ago isquite different from urban life in most cities today, where life hasmoved into restricted spaces, such as malls, apartment complexes,and private homes. Can you think of reasons for this change?

a material surplus, which freed some people from food pro-duction and allowed them to build shelters, make tools,weave cloth, and take part in religious rituals. The emer-gence of cities led to both specialization and higher livingstandards.

The first city was Jericho, which lies to the north of theDead Sea in what is now the West Bank. Dating back 10,000years, it was home to only 600 people. But as the centuriespassed, cities grew to tens of thousands of people and becamethe centers of vast empires. By 3000 B.C.E., Egyptian citiesflourished, as did cities in China about 2000 B.C.E. and inCentral and South America about 1500 B.C.E. In North Amer-ica, however, only a few Native American societies formedsettlements; widespread urbanization did not take place untilthe arrival of European settlers in the seventeenth century.

Preindustrial European cities. European cities date backsome 5,000 years to the Greeks and, later, the Romans, bothof whom formed great empires and founded cities acrossEurope, including Vienna, Paris, and London. With the fallof the Roman Empire, the so-called Dark Ages began aspeople withdrew within defensive walled settlements andwarlords battled for territory. Only in the eleventh centurydid Europe become more peaceful; trade flourished onceagain, allowing cities to grow.

Medieval cities were quite different from those familiarto us today. Beneath towering cathedrals, the narrow, wind-ing streets of London, Brussels, and Florence teemed withmerchants, artisans, priests, peddlers, jugglers, nobles, andservants. Occupational groups such as bakers, carpenters,and metalworkers clustered in distinct sections or “quar-ters.” Ethnicity also defined communities as people soughtto keep out those who differed from themselves. The term“ghetto” (from the Italian word borghetto, meaning “outsidethe city walls”) was first used to describe the neighborhoodinto which the Jews of Venice were segregated.

Industrial European cities. As the Middle Ages came to aclose, steadily increasing commerce enriched a new urbanmiddle class called the bourgeoisie (French, meaning“townspeople”). With more and more money, the bour-geoisie soon rivaled the hereditary nobility.

By about 1750, the Industrial Revolution triggered asecond urban revolution, first in Europe and then in NorthAmerica. The tremendous productive power of factoriescaused cities to grow bigger than ever before. London, thelargest European city, reached 550,000 people by 1700 andexploded to 6.5 million by 1900 (Weber, 1963, orig. 1899;Chandler & Fox, 1974).

Cities not only grew but changed shape as well. Olderwinding streets gave way to broad, straight boulevards to

handle the increasing flow of commercial traffic. Steam andelectric trolleys soon crisscrossed the expanding cities.Because land was now a commodity to be bought and sold,developers divided cities into regular-sized lots (Mumford,1961). The center of the city was no longer the cathedral buta bustling central business district filled with banks, retailstores, and tall office buildings.

With a new focus on business, cities became ever morecrowded and impersonal. Crime rates rose. Especially at theoutset, a few industrialists lived in grand style, but mostmen, women, and children barely survived by working infactories.

Organized efforts by workers eventually broughtimprovements to the workplace, better housing, and theright to vote. Public services such as water, sewer systems,and electricity further improved urban living. Today, some


ISB

N:0

-536

-121

16-8



TABLE 15–1

The Urban Population of the United States,1790–2000

Population PercentageYear (in millions) Urban

1790 3.9 5.1%1800 5.3 6.11820 9.6 7.31840 17.1 10.51860 31.4 19.71880 50.2 28.11900 76.0 39.71920 105.7 51.31940 131.7 56.51960 179.3 69.91980 226.5 73.72000 281.4 80.3


urbanites still live in poverty, but a rising standard of livinghas partly fulfilled the city’s historical promise of a better life.

THE GROWTH OF U.S. CITIESAs noted, most of the Native Americans who inhabitedNorth America for thousands of years before the arrival ofEuropeans were migratory people who formed few perma-nent settlements. The spread of villages and towns cameafter European colonization.

Colonial settlement: 1565–1800. In 1565, the Spanishbuilt a settlement at St. Augustine, Florida, and in 1607, theEnglish founded Jamestown, Virginia. However, the firstlasting settlement came in 1624 when the Dutch establishedNew Amsterdam, later renamed New York.

New York and Boston (founded by the English in 1630)started out as tiny villages in a vast wilderness. They resem-bled medieval towns in Europe, with narrow, windingstreets that still curve through lower Manhattan and down-town Boston.

But economic growth soon transformed these villagesinto thriving towns with wide streets usually laid out in agrid pattern. Even so, when the first census was completedin 1790, as Table 15–1 shows, just 5 percent of the nation’speople lived in cities.

Urban expansion: 1800–1860. Early in the nineteenthcentury, towns sprang up along the transportation routes

that opened the American West. By 1860, Buffalo, Cleveland,Detroit, and Chicago were all changing the face of the Midwest, and about one-fifth of the U.S. population lived in cities.

Urban expansion was greatest in the northern states;New York City, for example, had ten times the population ofCharleston, South Carolina. The division of the UnitedStates into the industrial-urban North and the agrarian-rural South was one major cause of the Civil War(Schlesinger, 1969).

The metropolitan era: 1860–1950. The Civil War(1861–1865) gave an enormous boost to urbanization asfactories strained to produce weapons. Waves of peopledeserted the countryside for cities in hopes of finding betterjobs. Joining them were tens of millions of immigrants,most from Europe, forming a culturally diverse urban mix.

In 1900, New York’s population soared passed the4 million mark, and Chicago, a city of scarcely 100,000 peo-ple in 1860, was closing in on 2 million. Such growthmarked the era of the metropolis (from Greek words mean-ing “mother city”), a large city that socially and economicallydominates an urban area. Metropolises became the eco-nomic centers of the United States. By 1920, urban areaswere home to a majority of the U.S. population.

Industrial technology pushed city populations higherand higher. In the 1880s, steel girders and mechanical eleva-tors permitted the construction of buildings over ten storieshigh. In 1930, New York’s Empire State Building was hailedas an urban wonder; this early skyscraper was the highestpoint in the New York skyline, stretching 102 stories into the clouds.

Urban decentralization: 1950–present. The industrialmetropolis reached its peak about 1950. Since then, some-thing of a turnaround, called urban decentralization, hasoccurred as people have left downtown areas for outlyingsuburbs, urban areas beyond the political boundaries of acity. The old industrial cities of the Northeast and Midweststopped growing, and some lost considerable population, inthe decades after 1950. The urban landscape of denselypacked central cities evolved into sprawling suburbanregions.

SUBURBS AND URBAN DECLINEImitating European nobility, some of the rich in the UnitedStates had town houses in the city as well as country homesbeyond the city limits. But not until after World War II did ordinary people find a suburban home within theirreach. With more and more cars, new four-lane highways,


ISB

N:0-536 -12116-8



government-backed mortgages, and inexpensive tracthomes, suburbs grew as never before. By 1999, most of theU.S. population lived in suburbs, where they frequentednearby shopping malls rather than the older downtownshopping districts (Pederson, Smith, & Adler, 1999; Macio-nis & Parrillo, 2004).

As many older cities of the Snowbelt—the Northeastand Midwest—lost higher-income taxpayers to the suburbs,they struggled to pay for expensive social programs for thepoor who remained. Many cities fell into financial crisis,and inner-city decay became severe. Especially to white peo-ple, the inner cities became synonymous with slum hous-ing, crime, drugs, unemployment, the poor, and minorities(Stahura, 1986; Galster, 1991).

Urban critic Paul Goldberger (2002) points out thatthe decline of central cities also has led to a decline in theimportance of public space. Historically, the heart of citylife was played out on public streets. The French word for asophisticated person is boulevardier, which literally means“street person.” However, this same term has a negativemeaning in the United States today. The active life thatonce took place on public streets and in public squares nowtakes place in shopping malls, cineplex lobbies, and gatedcommunities—all private spaces. Further reducing thevitality of today’s urban places is the spread of television,the Internet, and other media that people use inside theirprivate homes.

POSTINDUSTRIAL SUNBELT CITIESAs the older Snowbelt cities fell into decline, Sunbelt citiesin the South and West grew rapidly. The soaring popula-tions of cities such as Los Angeles and Houston reflect apopulation shift to the Sunbelt, where 60 percent of U.S.people now live. In addition, most of today’s immigrantsenter the country in the Sunbelt region. The result: Back in1950, nine of the ten largest U.S. cities were in the Snowbelt;by 2000, six of the top ten were in the Sunbelt (U.S. CensusBureau, 2001).

Unlike their colder counterparts, these cities came ofage after urban decentralization began. So while Snowbeltcities have long been enclosed by a ring of politically inde-pendent suburbs, Sunbelt cities have pushed their bound-aries outward along with the population flow. Chicagocovers 227 square miles; Houston covers more than550 square miles, and the greater Houston metropolitanregion covers almost 9,000 square miles—an area the sizeof New Jersey.

The great sprawl of Sunbelt cities has its drawbacks.Many people in cities such as Atlanta, Dallas, Phoenix,and Los Angeles argue that the growth follows no plan and

results in traffic-clogged roads leading to poorly planneddevelopments. As a result, voters in many communitiesacross the United States have passed ballot initiatives seek-ing to limit urban sprawl (Lacayo, 1999; Romero & Liserio,2002).

MEGALOPOLIS: THE REGIONAL CITYAnother result of urban decentralization is urban regions,or regional cities. The U.S. Census Bureau (2003) recognizes362 metropolitan statistical areas. These areas include atleast one city with 50,000 or more people. The bureau alsorecognizes 560 micropolitan statistical areas, urban areaswith at least one city of 10,000 to 50,000 people. Core basedstatistical areas (CBSAs) include both metropolitan andmicropolitan statistical areas.

The biggest CBSAs contain millions of people andcover areas that extend into several states. In 2000, thebiggest CBSA was New York and its adjacent urban areas inLong Island, western Connecticut, and northern New Jerseyand Pennsylvania, with a total population of more than21 million. Next in size is the CBSA in southern Californiathat includes Los Angeles, Riverside, and Long Beach, witha population of more than 16 million.

As regional cities grow, they begin to overlap. Forexample, along the East Coast, a 400-mile supercitystretches all the way from New England to Virginia. In theearly 1960s, the French geographer Jean Gottmann (1961)coined the term megalopolis to designate a vast urbanregion containing a number of cities and their surroundingsuburbs. Other supercities cover the eastern coast of Floridaand stretch from Cleveland west to Chicago.

EDGE CITIESUrban decentralization has also created edge cities, businesscenters some distance from the old downtowns. Edgecities—a mix of corporate office buildings, shopping malls,hotels, and entertainment complexes—differ from suburbs,which contain mostly homes. The population of suburbspeaks at night, but the population of edge cities peaks dur-ing the workday.

As part of expanding urban regions, most edge citieshave no clear physical boundaries. Some do have names,including Las Colinas (near the Dallas–Fort Worth airport),Tyson’s Corner (in Virginia, near Washington, D.C.), andKing of Prussia (northwest of Philadelphia). Other edgecities are known only by the major highways that flowthrough them, including Route 1 in Princeton, New Jersey,and Route 128 near Boston (Garreau, 1991; Macionis &Parrillo, 2004).


ISB

N:0

-536

-121

16-8



The rural rebound has been most pronounced in towns that offerspectacular natural beauty. There are times when people living inthe scenic town of Park City, Utah, cannot even find a parkingspace.

THE RURAL REBOUNDOver the course of U.S. history, as shown by the data inTable 15–1, the urban population of the nation hasincreased steadily. Immigration has played a part in thisincrease because most newcomers to this country settle incities. There has also been considerable migration fromrural areas to urban places, typically by people seekinggreater economic opportunity.

However, in the 1990s, three-fourths of the rural coun-ties across the United States gained population, a trend ana-lysts have called the “rural rebound.” Most of this gainresulted from migration of people from urban areas. Thistrend has not affected all rural places: As the opening to thischapter explains, many small towns in rural areas (especiallyin the midsection of the country from North Dakota downto Texas, as shown on National Map 15–1 on page 420) arestruggling simply to stay alive. But even in these areas, thelosses slowed during the 1990s (Johnson, 1999, 2001).

The greatest gains have come to rural communities thatoffer scenic and recreational attractions, such as lakes,mountains, and ski areas. People are drawn not only to the

natural beauty of rural communities but also to their slowerpace: less traffic, a lower crime rate, and cleaner air. A num-ber of companies have relocated to rural counties as well,which has increased economic opportunity for the ruralpopulation (Johnson, 1999; Johnson & Fuguitt, 2000).

Urbanism as a Way of LifeEarly sociologists in Europe and the United States focusedtheir attention on the rise of cities. We briefly present theiraccounts of urbanism as a way of life.

FERDINAND TÖNNIES: GEMEINSCHAFTAND GESELLSCHAFTIn the nineteenth century, the German sociologist Ferdi-nand Tönnies (1855–1937) studied how life in the newindustrial metropolis differed from life in rural villages.From this contrast, he developed two concepts that havebecome a lasting part of sociology’s terminology.

Tönnies (1963, orig. 1887) used the German wordGemeinschaft (meaning roughly “community”) to refer toa type of social organization in which people are closely linkedby kinship and tradition. The Gemeinschaft of the rural vil-lage, Tönnies explained, joins people in what amounts to asingle primary group.

By and large, argued Tönnies, Gemeinschaft does notexist in the modern city. On the contrary, urbanization cre-ates Gesellschaft (a German word, meaning roughly “asso-ciation”), a type of social organization in which people cometogether only on the basis of individual self-interest. In theGesellschaft way of life, individuals are motivated by theirown needs rather than by a desire to help improve the well-being of everyone. By and large, city dwellers have littlesense of community or common identity and look to otherpeople mainly when they need something. Tönnies saw inurbanization the weakening of close, long-lasting socialrelations in favor of the brief and impersonal ties—or sec-ondary relationships—typical of business.

EMILE DURKHEIM: MECHANICAL AND ORGANIC SOLIDARITYThe French sociologist Emile Durkheim agreed with muchof Tönnies’s thinking about cities. However, Durkheimcountered that urbanites do not lack social bonds; they sim-ply organize social life differently than rural people.

Durkheim described traditional, rural life as mechanicalsolidarity, social bonds based on common sentiments andshared moral values. With its emphasis on tradition,Durkheim’s concept of mechanical solidarity bears a striking


ISB

N:0-536 -12116-8



Peasant Dance (above, c. 1565), by Pieter Breughel the Elder, conveys the essential unity of rural life forged by generations of kinship andneighborhood. By contrast, Ernest Fiene’s Nocturne (left) communicates theimpersonality common to urban areas. Taken together, these paintingscapture Tönnies’s distinction between Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft.

Pieter Breughel the Elder (c. 1525/30–1569), Peasant Dance, c. 1565, Kunsthistorisches Museum,Vienna/Superstock. Ernest Fiene (1894–1965), Nocturne. Photograph © Christie’s Images.

similarity to Tönnies’s Gemeinschaft. Urbanization erodesmechanical solidarity, Durkheim explained, but it also generates a new type of bonding, which he called organic soli-darity, social bonds based on specialization and interdepend-ence. This concept, which parallels Tönnies’s Gesellschaft,reveals an important difference between the two thinkers.Both thought the growth of industrial cities weakened tradi-tion, but Durkheim optimistically pointed to a new kind ofsolidarity. Where societies had been built on likeness,Durkheim now saw social life based on difference.

For Durkheim, urban society offers more individualchoice, moral tolerance, and personal privacy than peoplefind in rural villages. In sum, Durkheim thought that some-thing is lost in the process of urbanization, but much isgained.

GEORG SIMMEL: THE BLASÉ URBANITEThe German sociologist Georg Simmel (1858 –1918)offered a microanalysis of cities, studying how urban lifeshapes individual experience. According to Simmel, indi-viduals see the city as a crush of people, objects, and events.To prevent being overwhelmed by all this stimulation,urbanites develop a blasé attitude, tuning out much of whatgoes on around them. Such detachment does not mean thatcity dwellers lack compassion for others; they simply keep

their distance as a survival strategy so they can focus theirtime and energy on those who really matter to them.

THE CHICAGO SCHOOL: ROBERT PARK AND LOUIS WIRTHSociologists in the United States soon joined the study ofrapidly growing cities. Robert Park (1864–1944), a leader of the first U.S. sociology program at the University ofChicago, sought to add a street-level perspective by gettingout and studying real cities. As he said of himself, “I suspectthat I have actually covered more ground, tramping aboutin cities in different parts of the world, than any other livingman” (1950:viii). Walking the streets, Park found the city tobe an organized mosaic of distinctive ethnic communities,commercial centers, and industrial districts. Over time, heobserved these “natural areas” develop and change in rela-tion to one another. To Park, the city was a living organ-ism—a human kaleidoscope.

Another major figure in the Chicago School of urbansociology was Louis Wirth (1897–1952). Wirth (1938) is bestknown for blending the ideas of Tönnies, Durkheim, Sim-mel, and Park into a comprehensive theory of urban life.

Wirth began by defining the city as a setting with alarge, dense, and socially diverse population. These traitsresult in an impersonal, superficial, and transitory way of


ISB

N:0

-536

-121

16-8



life. Living among millions of others, urbanites come intocontact with many more people than residents of rural areas.Thus, when city people notice others at all, they usuallyknow them not in terms of who they are but what they do—as, for instance, the bus driver, the florist, or the grocery storeclerk. Specialized, urban relationships sometimes are pleas-ant for all concerned. But we should remember that self-interest rather than friendship is the main reason for theinteraction.

Finally, the impersonal nature of urban relationships,together with the great social diversity found in cities today,makes city dwellers more tolerant than rural villagers. Ruralcommunities often jealously enforce their narrow traditions,but the heterogeneous population of a city rarely shares anysingle code of moral conduct (Wilson, 1985, 1995).

Critical review. In both Europe and the United States,early sociologists presented a mixed view of urban living.Rapid urbanization troubled Tönnies and Wirth, who sawpersonal ties and traditional morality lost in the anony-mous rush of the city. Durkheim and Park emphasizedurbanism’s positive face, pointing to more personal free-dom and greater personal choice.

One problem with all of these views is that they painturbanism in broad strokes that overlook the effects of class,race, and gender. There are many kinds of urbanites—richand poor, black and white, Anglo and Latino, women andmen—all leading distinctive lives (Gans, 1968). Indeed, asthe Diversity box explains, the share of racial and ethnicminorities in the largest U.S. cities increased sharply duringthe 1990s. We see social diversity most clearly in cities,where various categories of people are large enough to formvisible communities (Macionis & Parrillo, 2004).

URBAN ECOLOGYSociologists (especially members of the Chicago School)developed urban ecology, the study of the link between thephysical and social dimensions of cities. For example, why arecities located where they are? The first cities emerged in fer-tile regions where the ecology favored raising crops. Pre-industrial people, concerned with defense, built their citieson mountains (ancient Athens was perched on an outcrop-ping of rock) or surrounded by water (Paris and MexicoCity were built on islands). With the Industrial Revolution,economic considerations situated all major U.S. cities nearrivers and natural harbors that facilitated trade.

Urban ecologists also study the physical design of cities.In 1925, Ernest W. Burgess, a student and colleague of RobertPark’s, described land use in Chicago in terms of concentriczones. City centers, Burgess observed, are business districts

bordered by a ring of factories, followed by residential rings with housing that becomes more expensive the fartherit is from the noise and pollution of the city’s center.

Homer Hoyt (1939) refined Burgess’s observations,noting that distinctive districts sometimes form wedge-shaped sectors. For example, one fashionable area maydevelop next to another, or an industrial district may extendoutward from a city’s center along a train or trolley line.

Chauncy Harris and Edward Ullman (1945) added yetanother insight: As cities decentralize, they lose their single-center form in favor of a multicentered model. As cities grow,residential areas, industrial parks, and shopping districtstypically push away from one another. Few people want tolive close to industrial areas, for example, so the citybecomes a mosaic of distinct districts.

Social area analysis investigates what people in particu-lar neighborhoods have in common. Three factors seem toexplain most of the variation in neighborhood types: familypatterns, social class, and race and ethnicity (Shevky & Bell,1955; Johnston, 1976). Families with children look for areaswith large apartments or single-family homes and goodschools. The rich seek high-prestige neighborhoods, often inthe central city near cultural attractions. People with a com-mon ethnic heritage cluster in distinctive communities.

Finally, Brian Berry and Philip Rees (1969) tied togethermany of these insights. They explained that distinct familytypes tend to settle in the concentric zones described byErnest Burgess. Specifically, households with few childrentend to cluster toward the city’s center, and those with morechildren live farther away. Social class differences are prima-rily responsible for the sector-shaped districts described byHomer Hoyt; the rich occupy one “side of the tracks” and thepoor the other. And racial and ethnic neighborhoods arefound at various places throughout the city, consistent withHarris and Ullman’s multicentered model.

URBAN POLITICAL ECONOMYIn the late 1960s, many large U.S. cities were rocked bymajor riots. In the wake of this unrest, some analysts turnedaway from the ecological approach to a social-conflictunderstanding of city life. The urban political-economymodel applies Karl Marx’s analysis of conflict in the work-place to conflict in the city (Lindstrom, 1995).

Political economists disagree with the ecologicalapproach, which sees the city as a natural organism withparticular districts and neighborhoods developing accord-ing to an internal logic. They claim that city life is definedby people with power: corporate leaders and political offi-cials. Capitalism, which transforms the city into real estatetraded for profit and concentrates wealth in the hands of the


ISB

N:0-536 -12116-8





According to the results of the2000 U.S. Census, minorities—Hispanics, African Americans,

and Asians—are now a majority of thepopulation in 48 of the 100 largestU.S. cities, up from 30 in 1990.

Why the change? One reason isthat large cities have been losing theirnon-Hispanic white populations. Forexample, by 2000, Santa Ana, Cali-fornia, had lost 38 percent of thewhite population it had in 1990; thedrop was 40 percent in Birmingham,Alabama, and a whopping 53 percentin Detroit, Michigan. The white shareof the population of all 100 of thelargest cities fell from 52 percent in1990 to 44 percent in 2000.

But perhaps the biggest reason for the minority-majority trend is theincrease in immigration. Immigration,coupled with higher birth rates amongnew immigrants, resulted in a 43 per-cent gain in the Hispanic population(almost 4 million people) of thelargest 100 cities between 1990 and 2000. The Asian population alsosurged by 40 percent (more than1.1 million people). The African

American population was about steadyover the course of the past decade.

Political officials and other policymakers are examining these figuresclosely. Clearly, the future vitality ofthe largest U.S. cities depends onmeeting the needs and taking advan-tage of the contributions of theirswelling minority populations.

WHAT DO YOU THINK?

1. Why are the minority populations oflarge U.S. cities increasing?

2. What positive changes does aminority-majority bring to a city?

3. What challenges does a minority-majority bring to a city?

Sources: Based on Schmitt (2001) and U.S. CensusBureau (2001).

Census 2000: Minorities Now a Majority in the Largest U.S. Cities

Minority Population Change in the 100 Largest U.S. Cities

Asian5.3%Hispanic

17.2%

Non-HispanicAfrican American

24.6%

Non-HispanicWhite52.1%

Other0.8%

Total population: 51,765,000

Asian6.6%Hispanic

22.5%

Non-HispanicAfrican American

24.1%

Non-HispanicWhite43.8%

Other3.0%

Total population: 58,442,000

1990 2000

few, is the key to understanding city life. From this point ofview, the decline in industrial Snowbelt cities after 1950 wasthe result of deliberate decisions by the corporate elite tomove their production facilities to the Sunbelt (where laboris cheaper and less likely to be unionized) or move them outof the country entirely to low-income nations (Molotch,1976; Castells, 1977, 1983; Feagin, 1983; Lefebvre, 1991;Jones & Wilson, 1999).

Critical review. The fact that many U.S. cities are in crisis,with widespread poverty, high crime, and barely functioningschools, seems to favor the political-economy view over theurban ecology approach. But one criticism applies to both:They focus on U.S. cities during a limited period of history.

Much of what we know about industrial cities does notapply to preindustrial towns in our own past or the rapidlygrowing cities in many poor nations today. It is unlikely thatany single model of cities can account for the full range ofurban diversity found in the world today.

Urbanization in Poor SocietiesNovember 16, Cairo, Egypt. People callthe vast Muslim cemetery in Old Cairothe “City of the Dead.” In truth, it is very

much alive: Tens of thousands of squatters have


ISB

N:0

-536

-121

16-8



moved into the mausoleums, making this place aneerie mix of life and death. Children run across thestone floors, clotheslines stretch between the monu-ments, and an occasional television antenna protrudesfrom a tomb roof. With Cairo gaining 1,000 people aday, families live where they can.

Twice in its history, the world has experienced a revolu-tionary expansion of cities. The first urban revolution beganabout 8000 B.C.E. with the first urban settlements and contin-ued until permanent settlements were in place on several con-tinents. About 1750, the second urban revolution took off; itlasted for two centuries as the Industrial Revolution spurredrapid growth of cities in Europe and North America.

A third urban revolution is now underway. Today, 75 per-cent of people in high-income countries are already citydwellers. But extraordinary urban growth is occurring inpoor nations. In 1950, about 25 percent of the people in low-income countries lived in cities; in 2005, the figure is close to50 percent. In addition, in 1950, only seven cities in the worldhad populations over 5 million, and only two of these were inlow-income countries. By 2004, fifty-five urban areas hadpassed this mark, and thirty-eight of them were in less devel-oped nations (Brockerhoff, 2000; World Gazetteer, 2004).

This third urban revolution is taking place becausemany poor nations have entered the high-growth Stage 2 ofdemographic transition theory. Falling death rates havefueled population increase in Latin America, Asia, and espe-cially Africa. For urban areas, the rate of increase is twice ashigh because, in addition to natural increase, millions ofpeople leave the countryside each year in search of jobs,health care, education, and conveniences such as runningwater and electricity.

Cities do offer more opportunities than rural areas, butthey provide no quick fix for the problems of escalating pop-ulation and grinding poverty. Many cities in less developednations—including Mexico City, Egypt’s Cairo, India’s Cal-cutta, and Manila in the Philippines—are simply unable tomeet the basic needs of much of their population. All thesecities are surrounded by wretched shantytowns, settlementsof makeshift homes built from discarded materials. As notedin Chapter 9 (“Global Stratification”), even city dumps arehome to thousands of poor people, who pick through thewaste hoping to find enough to make it through another day.

Environment and SocietyThe human species has prospered, rapidly increasing in population over the entire the planet. An increasingshare of the global population now lives in large, complex

settlements that offer the promise of a better life than thatfound in rural villages.

But these advances have come at a high price. Neverbefore in history have human beings placed such demands onthe Earth. This disturbing development brings us to the finalsection of this chapter: a look at the interplay of the naturalenvironment and society. Like demography, ecology isanother cousin of sociology, formally defined as the study ofthe interaction of living organisms and the natural environ-ment. Ecology rests on the research of natural scientists aswell as social scientists. In this text, we focus on the aspects ofecology that involve familiar sociological concepts and issues.

The natural environment is the Earth’s surface andatmosphere, including living organisms, air, water, soil, andother resources necessary to sustain life. Like every otherspecies, humans depend on the natural environment to sur-vive. Yet with our capacity for culture, humans stand apartfrom other species; we alone take deliberate action toremake the world according to our own interests anddesires, for better and for worse.

Why is the environment of interest to sociologists?Environmental problems—from pollution to global warm-ing—do not arise from the natural world operating on itsown. Such problems result from the specific actions ofhuman beings, making them social problems (Marx, 1994).

THE GLOBAL DIMENSIONThe study of the natural environment must be approachedfrom a global perspective. Regardless of political divisionsbetween nations, the planet is a single ecosystem, a systemcomposed of the interaction of all living organisms and theirnatural environment.

The Greek meaning of eco is “house,” reminding us thatthis planet is our home and that all living things and theirnatural environment are interrelated. A change in any partof the natural environment sends ripples through the entireglobal ecosystem.

Consider, from an ecological point of view, ournational love of eating hamburgers. People in North Amer-ica (and, increasingly, around the world) have created ahuge demand for beef, which has greatly expanded ranchingin Brazil, Costa Rica, and other Latin American nations. Toproduce the lean meat sought by fast-food corporations,cattle in Latin America feed on grass, which uses a great dealof land. Latin American ranchers clear the land for grazingby destroying thousands of square miles of forests each year.These tropical forests are vital to maintaining the Earth’satmosphere. Deforestation ends up threatening everyone,including those people back in the United States enjoyingtheir hamburgers (Myers, 1984b).


ISB

N:0-536 -12116-8



The most important insight sociology offers about ourphysical world is that environmental problems do notsimply “happen.” Rather, the state of the naturalenvironment reflects the ways in which social life isorganized—how people live and what they think isimportant. Moreover, the greater the technologicalpower of a society, the greater that society’s ability tothreaten the natural environment.

TECHNOLOGY AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL DEFICIT

Sociologists point to a simple formula: I = PAT, where envi-ronmental impact (I) reflects a society’s population (P), itslevel of affluence (A), and its level of technology (T). Mem-bers of societies with simple technology—the hunters andgatherers described in Chapter 2 (“Culture”)—hardly affectthe environment because they are small in number, poor,and have only simple technology. On the contrary, natureaffects their lives as they follow the migration of game,watch the rhythm of the seasons, and suffer from naturalcatastrophes, such as fires, floods, droughts, and storms.

Societies at intermediate stages of sociocultural evolu-tion have a somewhat greater capacity to affect the environ-ment. But the environmental impact of horticulture(small-scale farming), pastoralism (the herding of animals),and even agriculture (the use of animal-drawn plows) islimited because people still rely on muscle power for pro-ducing food and other goods.

Human control of the natural environment increaseddramatically with the Industrial Revolution. Muscle powergave way to engines that burn fossil fuels: coal at first andthen oil. Such machinery affects the environment in twoways: by consuming natural resources and by releasing pol-lutants into the atmosphere. Even more important, humansarmed with industrial technology are able to bend nature totheir will, tunneling through mountains, damming rivers,irrigating deserts, and drilling for oil on the ocean floor.This explains why people in rich nations, who represent just18 percent of humanity, use 80 percent of the world’s energy(Miller, 1992; York, Rosa, & Deitz, 2002).

The environmental impact of industrial technologygoes beyond energy consumption. Just as important is thefact that members of industrial societies produce 100 timesmore goods than people in agrarian societies. Higher livingstandards, in turn, increase the problems of solid waste(because people ultimately throw away most of what theyproduce) and pollution (industrial production generatessmoke and other toxic substances).

Right from the start, people recognized the materialbenefits of industrial technology. But only a century laterdid they begin to see its long-term effects on the naturalenvironment, which set the stage for the growth of the envi-ronmental movement. Today, we realize that the technolog-ical power to make our lives better can also put the lives offuture generations at risk, and there is a national debateabout how to address this issue.

Evidence is mounting that we are running up an envi-ronmental deficit, profound and long-term harm to the nat-ural environment caused by humanity’s focus on short-termmaterial affluence (Bormann, 1990). The concept of envi-ronmental deficit is important for three reasons. First, itreminds us that the state of the environment is a socialissue, reflecting choices people make about how to live. Sec-ond, it suggests that much environmental damage—to theair, land, or water—is unintended. By focusing on theshort-term benefits of, say, cutting down forests, strip min-ing, or using throwaway packaging, we fail to see theirlong-term environmental effects. Third, in some respects,the environmental deficit is reversible. Inasmuch as soci-eties have created environmental problems, societies canundo many of them.


ISB

N:0

-536

-121

16-8



Low

High

Industrial Output per Capita

Pollution

PopulationFood per Capita

Resources

210020001900

FIGURE 15–5 The Limits to Growth: ProjectionsSource: Based on Meadows et al. (1972).

CULTURE: GROWTH AND LIMITSWhether we recognize environmental dangers and decide to do something about them is a cultural matter. Thus,along with technology, culture has powerful environmentalconsequences.

The logic of growth. One of the core values that underliesocial life in the United States is material comfort, the beliefthat money and the things it buys enrich our lives. We alsobelieve in the idea of progress, thinking that the future will bebetter than the present. In addition, we look to science to makeour lives easier and more rewarding. In simpler terms,“havingthings is good,”“life gets better,” and “people are clever.” Takentogether, such cultural values form the logic of growth.

An optimistic view of the world, the logic of growthholds that more powerful technology has improved ourlives and that new discoveries will continue to do so into thefuture. Throughout the history of the United States andother high-income nations, the logic of growth has been thedriving force behind settling the wilderness, building townsand roads, and the pursuit of material affluence.

However, “progress” can lead to unexpected problems,including strain on the environment. The logic of growthresponds by arguing that people (especially scientists andother technology experts) will find a way out of any prob-lem placed in our path. If, for example, the world runs short

of oil, scientists will come up with electric, solar, or nuclearengines or some as yet unknown technology to meet theworld’s energy needs.

Environmentalists counter that the logic of growth isflawed because it assumes that natural resources such asclean air, fresh water, and the Earth’s topsoil will always beplentiful. We can and will exhaust these finite resources if wecontinue to pursue growth at any cost. Echoing Malthus,environmentalists warn that if we call on the Earth to sup-port increasing numbers of people, we will surely destroythe environment—and ourselves—in the process.

The limits to growth. If we cannot invent our way out ofthe problems created by the logic of growth, perhaps weneed another way of thinking about the world. Environ-mentalists claim that growth must have limits. Stated sim-ply, the limits to growth thesis is that humanity must put inplace policies to control population increase, pollution,and the use of resources in order to avoid environmentalcollapse.

In The Limits to Growth, a controversial book that hada large hand in launching the environmental movement,Donella Meadows and her colleagues (1972) used a com-puter model to calculate the planet’s available resources,rates of population growth, amount of land available forcultivation, levels of industrial and food production, andamount of pollutants released into the atmosphere. Themodel reflects changes that have occurred since 1900 andprojects forward to the end of the twenty-first century.The authors concede that such long-range predictions arespeculative, and some critics think they are plain wrong(Simon, 1981). But right or wrong, the general conclu-sions of the study, shown in Figure 15–5, call for seriousconsideration.

According to the limits to growth thesis, we are quicklyusing up the Earth’s finite resources. Supplies of oil, naturalgas, and other energy sources are already falling sharply andwill continue to drop, a little faster or more slowly depend-ing on conservation policies in rich nations and how fastother nations industrialize. Although food production perperson will continue to rise during this century, worldhunger will persist because existing food supplies are dis-tributed so unequally. By 2050, the model predicts thathunger will reach a crisis level, first stabilizing populationand then sending it back downward. Sooner or later,resource depletion will cripple industrial output as well.Only then will pollution rates fall.

Limits to growth theorists are also known as neo-Malthusians because they share Malthus’s pessimism about the future. They doubt that current patterns of life are sustainable for even another century. If so, we face a


ISB

N:0-536 -12116-8



Yard Waste 12%

Plastic 11%

Metal 8%

Food Waste 11%

Paper 37%

Glass 6%

Other 15%

FIGURE 15–6 Composition of Community TrashSource: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2003).

fundamental choice: Either we make deliberate changes inhow we live, or widespread calamity will force change on us.

SOLID WASTE: THE DISPOSABLE SOCIETYAcross the United States, people generate a massive amountof solid waste–about 1.5 billion pounds each and every day.Figure 15–6 shows the composition of a typical commu-nity’s trash.

As a rich nation containing people who value conven-ience, the United States has become a disposable society. Weconsume more products than virtually any other nation onEarth, many of which have throwaway packaging. Forexample, fast food is served in cardboard, plastic, and Sty-rofoam containers that we throw away within minutes. Butcountless other products—from film to fishhooks—areelaborately packaged to make them more attractive to thecustomer and to discourage tampering and theft.

Manufacturers market soft drinks, beer, and fruit juicesin aluminum cans, glass jars, and plastic containers, whichnot only use up finite resources but also create mountains ofsolid waste. Countless items are intentionally designed to bedisposable: pens, razors, flashlights, batteries, even cameras.Other goods, from light bulbs to automobiles, are designed tohave a limited useful life after which they become unwantedjunk. As Paul H. Connett (1991) points out, even the wordswe use to describe what we throw away—“waste,” “trash,”“refuse,”“garbage,”“rubbish”—show how little we value whatwe cannot immediately use. But this was not always the case,as the Applying Sociology box on page 438 explains.

Living in a rich society, the average person in the UnitedStates consumes 50 times more steel, 170 times more news-paper, 250 times more gasoline, and 300 times more plasticeach year than the typical person in a low-income countrysuch as Haiti (Miller, 1992). This high level of consumptionmeans that we in the United States not only use a dispropor-tionate share of the planet’s natural resources but also gen-erate most of the world’s refuse.

We like to say that we “throw things away.” But 80 per-cent of our solid waste never “goes away.” Rather, it ends upin landfills, which are, literally, filling up. Material in land-fills also can pollute groundwater. Although in most placeslaws now regulate what can be discarded in a landfill, theEnvironmental Protection Agency has identified 30,000dump sites across the United States containing hazardousmaterials that are polluting water both above and below theground. In addition, what goes into landfills all too oftenstays there, sometimes for centuries. Tens of millions oftires, diapers, and other items that we bury in landfills eachyear do not decompose and will be an unwelcome legacy forfuture generations.

Environmentalists argue that we should address theproblem of solid waste by doing what many of our ancestorsdid: Turn “waste” into a resource. One way to do this isthrough recycling, reusing resources we would otherwisethrow away. Recycling is an accepted practice in Japan andmany other nations, and it is becoming more common in theUnited States, where we now reuse about 30 percent of wastematerials. The share is increasing as laws mandate reuse ofcertain materials such as glass bottles and aluminum cans.Because of our nation’s market-based economy, recyclingwill also increase as it becomes more profitable.

WATER AND AIROceans, lakes, and streams are the lifeblood of the globalecosystem. Humans depend on water for drinking, bathing,cooling, cooking, recreation, and a host of other activities.

According to what scientists call the hydrologic cycle,the Earth naturally recycles water and refreshes the land.The process begins as heat from the sun causes the Earth’swater, 97 percent of which is in the oceans, to evaporate andform clouds. Because water evaporates at lower tempera-tures than most pollutants, the water vapor that rises fromthe seas is relatively pure, leaving various contaminantsbehind. Water then falls to the Earth as rain, which drainsinto streams and rivers and, finally, returns to the sea. Twomajor concerns about water, then, are supply and pollution.

Water supply. Only about 1 percent of the Earth’s water is suitable for drinking. It is not surprising, then, that for


ISB

N:0

-536

-121

16-8



A P P LY I N G S O C I O L O G Y

A P P LY I N G S O C I O L O G Y

Grandma Macionis, we alwaysused to say, never threw awayanything. She was born and

raised in Lithuania—the “old coun-try”—where life in a poor villageshaped her in ways that neverchanged, even after she came to theUnited States as a young woman andsettled in Philadelphia.

After opening a birthday present,she would carefully save the box, wrap-ping paper, and ribbon, which meantas much to her as the gift they con-tained. Grandma never wore newclothes, her kitchen knives were wornthin from decades of sharpening, andall her garbage was recycled as com-post for her vegetable garden.

As strange as Grandma seemed toher grandchildren, she was a productof her culture. A century ago, therewas little “trash.” If a pair of sockswore thin, Grandma mended them,

probably more than once. When theywere beyond repair, she used them asa rag for cleaning or sewed them (withother old clothing) into a quilt. For her,everything had value, if not in one way,then in another.

During the twentieth century, aswomen joined men working outside of

the home, income went up and people spent less time at home. Families began buying more and more “time-saving” products. Beforelong, few people cared about the homerecycling that Grandma practiced.Soon cities sent crews from block toblock to pick up truckloads of dis-carded material. The era of “trash”had begun.

WHAT DO YOU THINK?

1. Just as Grandma Macionis was aproduct of her culture, so are we.What cultural values make peopletoday demand “time-saving” prod-ucts and “convenience” packaging?

2. What do you think are the prospectsfor expanding recycling of materialsin the near future?

3. Would you support laws that limitedpeople’s trash? Why or why not?

Why Grandmother Had No Trash

thousands of years, water rights have figured prominently inlaws around the world. Today, as Global Map 15–2 shows,some regions of the world, especially the tropics, enjoy plen-tiful fresh water, using only a small share of the availablesupply. High demand, coupled with modest reserves, makewater supply a matter of concern in much of North Americaand Asia, where people look to rivers rather than rainfall fortheir water. In China, deep aquifers are dropping rapidly. Inthe Middle East, water supply is reaching a critical level. Iranis rationing water in its capital city. In Egypt, people can con-sume just one-sixth as much water from the Nile River todayas in 1900. Across northern Africa and the Middle East,experts predict, as many as 1 billion people may lack thewater they need for irrigation and drinking by 2025 (Postel,1993; “China Faces Water Shortage,” 2001).

Rising population and the development of more com-plex technology have greatly increased the world’s appetitefor water. The global consumption of water (now estimatedat 4 billion cubic feet per year) has doubled since 1950 and

is rising steadily. As a result, even in parts of the world thatreceive plenty of rainfall, people are using groundwaterfaster than it can be replenished naturally. In the TamilNadu region of southern India, for example, people aredrawing so much groundwater that the local water table hasfallen 100 feet over the last several decades. Mexico City—which has sprawled to some 1,400 square miles—haspumped so much water from its underground aquifer thatthe city has sunk 30 feet in the past century and continuesto drop about 2 inches per year. Farther north in the UnitedStates, the Ogallala aquifer, which lies below seven statesfrom South Dakota to Texas, is now being pumped so rap-idly that some experts fear it could run dry within severaldecades.

In light of such developments, we must face the realitythat water is a valuable and finite resource. Greater conserva-tion of water by individuals (the average person consumes10 million gallons in a lifetime) is part of the answer. However,households around the world account for just 10 percent of


ISB

N:0-536 -12116-8



water use. We need to curb water consumption by industry,which uses 25 percent of the global total, and farming, whichconsumes two-thirds of the total for irrigation.

New irrigation technology may reduce the demand forwater in the future. But here again, we see how population

increase, as well as economic growth, strains our ecosystem(Postel, 1993; Population Action International, 2000).

Water pollution. In large cities—from Mexico City toCairo to Shanghai—many people have no choice but to

GLOBAL MAP 15–2 Water Consumption in Global Perspective

This map shows water consumption as a percentage of each country’s renewable water resources. Nations near theequator use only a tiny share of their available resources; indeed, much of this region is covered with rain forest.Northern Africa and the Middle East are a different story, however, with dense populations drawing on very limitedwater resources. As a result, in countries such as Libya, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia, people (especially the poor) do nothave as much water as they would like or, often, as they need.

Source: United Nations Development Programme (2000).

A N T A R C T I C A

TUVALU

WESTERNSAMOA

FIJI

TONGANEW CALEDONIA

NEWZEALAND

AUSTRALIA

SOLOMONISLANDSPAPUA

NEW GUINEA

VANUATU

KIRIBATI

MARSHALLISLANDSFEDERATED STATES

OF MICRONESIA

NAURU

JAPAN

N. KOREAS. KOREA

KAZAKHSTAN

MONGOLIAUZBEKISTAN

KYRGYZSTAN

OMAN

PAKIS

TAN

AFGHANIS

TAN PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC

OF CHINA

NEPAL BHUTAN

TAJIKISTAN

IRAN

MALAYSIA

BRUNEI

I N D O N E S I A

SINGAPORE

CAMBODIASRILANKA

VIETNAM

PHILIPPINES

TAIWAN, REPUBLIC OF CHINA

INDIA

BANGLADESHLAOS

THAILAND

MY

AN

MA

R

MAURITIUS

MADAGASCAR

SOUTH

AFRICA LESOTHO

SWAZILAND

NAMIBIA

BOTSWANA

MOZAMBIQUE

ZIMBABWE

ZAMBIA MALAWI

MALDIVES

SEYCHELLES

COMOROS

TANZANIA

SÃO TOMÉ& PRINCIPE

RWANDA

BURUNDI

KENYA

ANGOLA

GABON

CONGO

EQUATORIALGUINEA

UGANDACAMEROON

SOMALIA

CENT.AFR.REP.

ETHIOPIA

DJIBOUTI

SUDANCHAD YEMEN

KUWAIT

NIG

ERIA

NIGER

BENIN

IVORYCOAST TOGO

MAURITANIA

SENEGAL

GAMBIA

GUINEA-BISSAUGUINEA

SIERRA LEONE

LIBERIA

MA

L I

BURKINAFASO

CAPE VERDE

SAUDIARABIA

EGYPT

LIBYA

U.A.E.

ALGERIAWESTERN

SAHARA

MO

ROCC

O

ESTONIALATVIALITHUANIA

SERBIA-MONT.

FINLANDSWEDEN

ST. VINCENT

ME

XI C

O

BAHAMAS

TRINIDAD & TOBAGO

ANTIGUA AND BARBUDADOMINICA

ST. LUCIABARBADOS

GRENADA

GUYANA

FRENCH GUIANASURINAME

BO

LIVIA

PA

RA

GU

AY

AR

GE

NT

INA

CO

LO

MB

I A

B R A Z I L

PE

RU

URUGUAY

CHILE

ECUADOR

HAITIJAMAICA

NICARAGUA

CUBA

DOMINICANREPUBLIC

GUATEMALA

EL SALVADOR

BELIZEHONDURAS

COSTA RICA

PANAMAVENEZUELA

PUERTO RICO

U.S.

U.S.

UNITED STATESOF

AMERICA

C A N A D A

ICELAND

GREENLANDNORWAY

DENMARK

GREATBRITAIN

IRELAND

MALTA

JORDAN

IRAQ

BAHRAINQATAR

ISRAELLEBANON

SYRIA

TURKEYTURKMENISTAN

AZERBAIJAN

ARMENIA

GEORGIA

UKRAINEMOLDOVA

BELARUS

GREECE

POLAND

ROM.

BUL.

HUNG.

MAC.

CZECHREP.

CYPRUSTUNISIA

PORTUGAL

GERM.NETH.BEL.

LUX.SWITZ.

ITALYFRANCE

AUS.SLOV.

SPAIN

SLOVENIACROATIA

BOSNIA-HERZ.ALB.

HONG KONGMACAO

ERITREA

RUSSIAN FEDERATION 60°

40°

20°

0°

20°

40°

60°

180°160°140°120°100°80°60°40°20°0°20°60° 40°80°100°120°140°160°

40°

20°

Equator Equator Equator0°

20°

40°

60°

Water Consumption as Percentageof Natural Water Supply

40.0 percent or more

20.0 to 39.9 percent

10.0 to 19.9 percent

2.0 to 9.9 percent

Less than 2.0 percent

No data

Tropical rain forest

DEM.REP.

OF THECONGO

EAST TIMOR

ISB

N:0

-536

-121

16-8



drink contaminated water. Infectious diseases such astyphoid, cholera, and dysentery, all caused by waterbornemicroorganisms, spread rapidly through these populations.In addition to ensuring ample supplies of water, we mustprotect the quality of water.

Water quality in the United States is generally good byglobal standards. However, even here the problem of waterpollution is steadily growing. According to the Sierra Club,an environmental activist organization, rivers and streamsacross the United States absorb some 500 million pounds oftoxic waste each year. This pollution results not just fromintentional dumping but also from the runoff of agricul-tural fertilizers and lawn chemicals.

A special problem is acid rain—rain made acidic by airpollution—that destroys plant and animal life. Acid rain (orsnow) begins with power plants burning fossil fuels (oil andcoal) to generate electricity; this burning process releasessulfuric and nitrous oxides into the air. As the wind sweepsthese gases into the atmosphere, they react with the air toform sulfuric and nitric acids, which turn atmosphericmoisture acidic.

This is a clear case of one type of pollution caus-ing another: Air pollution (from smokestacks) ends up

contaminating water (in lakes and streams that collect acidrain). Acid rain is truly a global phenomenon because the

regions that suffer the harmful effects may be thou-sands of miles from the source of the pollu-

tion. For instance, British power plantshave caused acid rain that has devastatedforests and fish in Norway and Sweden,1,000 miles to the northeast. In theUnited States, we see a similar pattern asmidwestern smokestacks have harmed

the natural environment of upstate NewYork and New England.

Air pollution. Because we are sur-rounded by air, most people in the United

States are more aware of air pollution than con-taminated water. One of the unexpected conse-

quences of industrial technology—especially thefactory and the motor vehicle—has been a decline in

air quality. In 1950, exhaust fumes from automobilesshrouded cities such as Los Angeles. In London, factorysmokestacks, automobiles, and coal fires used to heathouseholds all added up to what was probably the worsturban air quality of the last century. What some Britishjokingly called “pea soup” was in reality a deadly mix ofpollution: During five days in 1952, an especially thick hazethat hung over London killed 4,000 people.

Air quality improved in the final decades of the twenti-eth century. Rich nations passed laws that banned high-pollution heating, including the coal fires that choked London fifty years ago. In addition, scientists devised waysto make factories as well as automobiles and trucks operatemuch more cleanly.

If high-income countries can breathe a bit more easilythan they once did, the problem of air pollution in poorsocieties is becoming more serious. One reason is that peo-ple in low-income countries still rely on wood, coal, peat,or other “dirty” fuels to cook their food and heat theirhomes. In addition, nations eager to encourage short-termindustrial development may pay little attention to thelonger-term dangers of air pollution. As a result, manycities in Latin America, Eastern Europe, and Asia areplagued by air pollution as bad as London’s pea soup fiftyyears ago.

THE RAIN FORESTSRain forests are regions of dense forestation, most of whichcircle the globe close to the equator. A glance back at GlobalMap 15–2 on page 439 shows that the largest tropical rain

Water is vital to life, and it is also in short supply. The state ofGujarat, in western India, has experienced a decade-long drought.In the village of Natwarghad, people crowd together, lowering potsinto the local well, taking what little water is left.


ISB

N:0-536 -12116-8



forests are in South America (notably Brazil), west-centralAfrica, and Southeast Asia. In all, the world’s rain forestscover some 2 billion acres, or 7 percent of the Earth’s totalland surface.

Like other global resources, rain forests are falling vic-tim to the needs and appetites of the surging world popula-tion. As noted earlier, to meet the demand for beef, ranchersin Latin America burn forested areas to increase their sup-ply of grazing land. We are also losing rain forests to thehardwood trade. People in rich nations pay high prices formahogany and other woods because, as environmentalistNorman Myers (1984c:88) puts it, they have “a penchantfor parquet floors, fine furniture, fancy paneling, weekend

yachts, and high-gradecoffins.” Under such eco-nomic pressure, theworld’s rain forests are

now just half their original size, and they continue toshrink by about 1 percent (65,000 square miles) annually.Unless we stop this loss, the rain forests will vanish beforethe end of the twenty-first century and with them protec-tion for the Earth’s biodiversity and climate.

Global warming. Why are rain forests so important?One reason is that they cleanse the atmosphere of carbondioxide (CO2). Since the beginning of the Industrial Revo-lution, the amount of carbon dioxide produced by humans(mostly from factories and automobiles) has risen sharply.Much of this CO2 is absorbed by the oceans. But plantstake in carbon dioxide and expel oxygen. This is why therain forests are vital to maintaining the chemical balance ofthe atmosphere.

The problem is that production of carbon dioxide is ris-ing while the amount of plant life on the Earth is shrinking.To make matters worse, rain forests are being destroyedmostly by burning, which releases even more carbon dioxide

into the atmosphere.Experts estimate that theatmospheric concentra-tion of carbon dioxide is

now 20 to 30 percent higher than it was 150 years ago(Revkin, 2002).

High above the Earth, carbon dioxide acts like the glassroof of a greenhouse, letting heat from the sun pass throughto the Earth while preventing much of it from radiating backaway from the planet, a mechanism called the greenhouseeffect. The result, say ecologists, is global warming, a rise inthe Earth’s average temperature due to an increasing concen-tration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Over the pastcentury, the global temperature has risen about 1 degreeFahrenheit (to an average of 58° F). Scientists warn that it

could rise by 5° F to 10° F during this century, which wouldmelt vast areas of the polar ice caps and raise the sea levelto cover low-lying land around the world. Were this to hap-pen, water would cover all of Bangladesh, for example, andmuch of the coastal United States, including Washington,D.C., right up to the steps of the White House. On theother hand, the U.S. Midwest, currently one of the mostproductive agricultural regions in the world, probablywould become arid.

Not all scientists share this gloomy outlook. Somepoint out that global temperature changes have been takingplace throughout history, apparently having little or noth-ing to do with rain forests. Higher concentrations of carbondioxide in the atmosphere might speed up plant growth(because plants thrive on this gas), which would correct theimbalance and nudge the Earth’s temperature downwardonce again. But a consensus is building that global warmingis a problem that threatens the future for all of us (Begley,1997; McDonald, 1999).

For more information aboutrain forests, visit http://www.rainforestweb.org

The Heinz Center publishesanalyses of society’s effect onthe natural environment athttp://www.heinzctr.org/publications.htm

The world’s rain forests continue to shrink by about 1 percent each year. The Amazon Highway, being built through the Brazilianrain forest, is to many people a welcome source of economicdevelopment. But what effect will such development have on thelocal environment? What difference does this make for us here inthe United States?


ISB

N:0

-536

-121

16-8



Members of small, simple societies, such as theTan’t Batu, who thrive in the Philippines, live inharmony with nature; such people do not have thetechnological means to greatly affect the naturalworld. Although we in complex societies like tothink of ourselves as superior to such people, thetruth is that there is much we can—and must—learn from them.

Declining biodiversity. Clearing rain forests also reducesthe Earth’s biodiversity. This is because rain forests are hometo almost half of the planet’s living species.

On Earth, there are as many as 30 million species ofanimals, plants, and microorganisms. Several dozen uniquespecies of plants and animals cease to exist each day. Butgiven the vast number of living species, why should we beconcerned? Environmentalists give three reasons. First, ourplanet’s biodiversity provides a varied source of humanfood. Using agricultural high technology, scientists can“splice” familiar crops with more exotic plant life, makingfood more bountiful and more resistant to insects and dis-ease. Thus, biodiversity helps feed our planet’s rapidlyincreasing population.

Second, animal and plant biodiversity is a vital geneticresource. Medical and pharmaceutical researchers rely on itto provide hundreds of new compounds each year that curedisease and improve our lives. For example, children in theUnited States now have a good chance of survivingleukemia, a disease that was almost a sure killer two gener-ations ago, because of a compound derived from a prettytropical flower called the rosy periwinkle. The oral birthcontrol pill, used by tens of millions of women in this coun-try, is another product of plant research, this one involvingthe Mexican forest yam.

Third, with the loss of any species of life—whether it isthe magnificent California condor, the famed Chinesepanda, the spotted owl, or even a single species of ant—thebeauty and complexity of our natural environment are

diminished. And there are clear warning signs: Three-fourths of the world’s 9,000 bird species are declining innumber.

Finally, unlike pollution, the extinction of any species isirreversible and final. An important ethical question iswhether people living today have the right to impoverishthe world for those who will live tomorrow (Myers, 1991;Wilson, 1991; Brown et al., 1993).

ENVIRONMENTAL RACISMConflict theory has given birth to the concept of environ-mental racism, the pattern by which environmental hazardsare greatest for poor people, especially minorities. Historically,factories that spew pollution have stood near neighbor-hoods housing the poor and people of color. Why? In part,the poor themselves were drawn to factories in search ofwork, and their low incomes often meant they could affordhousing only in undesirable neighborhoods. Sometimes theonly housing that fit their budgets stood in the very shadowof the plants and mills where they worked.

Nobody wants a factory or dump nearby, of course, butthe poor have little power to resist. Through the years, themost serious environmental hazards have been placed nearNewark, New Jersey (not in upscale Bergen County), insouthside Chicago (not wealthy Lake Forest), or on NativeAmerican reservations in the West (not in affluent suburbsof Denver or Phoenix) (Commission for Racial Justice,1994; Bohon & Humphrey, 2000).


ISB

N:0-536 -12116-8



C O N T R O V E R S Y & D E B AT E

C O N T R O V E R S Y & D E B AT E

Are you worried about the world’sincreasing population? Thinkabout this: By the time you fin-

ish reading this box, more than 1,000people will be added to our planet. Bythis time tomorrow, global populationwill rise by about 200,000. Currently,as the table shows, there are aboutfour births for every two deaths on theplanet, pushing the world’s populationupward by 73 million annually. Globalpopulation growth amounts to addinganother Egypt to the world every year.

It is no wonder that many demogra-phers and environmentalists are deeplyconcerned about the future. The Earthhas an unprecedented population: The2 billion people we have added since1974 alone exceeds the planet’s totalin 1900. Might Thomas Malthus—whopredicted that overpopulation would

use up the Earth’s resources andplunge humanity into war and suffer-ing—be right after all? Lester Brownand other neo-Malthusians predict acoming apocalypse if we do not changeour ways. Brown admits that Malthusfailed to imagine how much technology(especially fertilizers and altering plantgenetics) could boost the planet’s agri-cultural output. But he maintains thatthe Earth’s rising population is never-theless rapidly outstripping its finiteresources. Families in many poor coun-tries can find little firewood, membersof rich societies are depleting world-wide oil reserves, and everyone isdraining our supply of clean water andpoisoning the planet with waste. Someanalysts argue that we have alreadypassed the Earth’s “carrying capacity”for population and we need to hold the

line or even reduce population toensure our long-term survival.

But other analysts, the anti-Malthusians, sharply disagree. JulianSimon points out that centuries afterMalthus predicted catastrophe, the Earthsupports almost six times as many peo-ple who, on average, live longer, health-ier lives than ever before. With moreadvanced technology, people havedevised ways to increase productivityand limit population increase. As Simonsees it, this is cause for celebration.Human ingenuity has consistently proventhe doomsayers wrong, and Simon isbetting it will continue to do so.

CONTINUE THE DEBATE . . .

1. Where do you place your bet? Doyou think the Earth can support 4, 6, 8, or 10 billion people? Why?

2. Ninety-six percent of current popu-lation growth is in poor countries.What does this mean for the futureof rich nations? For the future ofpoor ones?

3. What should people in rich coun-tries do to ensure their children’sfuture?

Sources: Based in part on Brown (1995), Simon(1995), Scanlon (2001), and Smail (2004).

Apocalypse: Will People Overwhelm the Earth?

Global Population Increase

Births Deaths Net Increase

Per year 129,108,390 56,540,896 72,567,494Per month 10,759,033 4,711,741 6,047,291Per day 352,755 154,483 198,272Per hour 14,698 6,437 8,261Per minute 245 107 138Per second 4.1 1.8 2.3

Looking Ahead: Toward a SustainableSociety and World

The demographic analysis presented in this chapter points tosome disturbing trends. First, the Earth’s population hasreached record levels because birth rates remain high in poornations and death rates have fallen just about everywhere.Reducing fertility will remain a pressing issue throughoutthis century. Even with some recent decline in population

increase, the nightmare of Thomas Malthus is still a real pos-sibility, as the Controversy & Debate box explains.

Furthermore, population growth remains greatest inthe poorest countries of the world, which lack the means tosupport their present populations, much less their futureones. Supporting 73 million additional people on ourplanet each year, 70 million of whom are in poor societies,will take a global commitment to provide not only food butalso housing, schools, and employment. The well-being ofthe entire world may ultimately depend on resolving the


ISB

N:0

-536

-121

16-8



economic and social problems of poor, overly populatedcountries and bridging the widening gulf between “have”and “have-not” societies.

Urbanization is continuing, especially in poor coun-tries. People have always sought out cities in the hope offinding a better life. But the sheer numbers of people wholive in the emerging global supercities, including MexicoCity, São Paulo (Brazil), Kinshasa (Democratic Republic ofthe Congo), Bombay (India), and Manila (the Philippines),have created urban problems on a massive scale.

Throughout the world, humanity is facing a seriousenvironmental challenge. Part of this problem is populationincrease, which is greatest in poor societies. But high levelsof consumption, which mark rich nations such as ours, alsoplay a role. By increasing the planet’s environmental deficit,our present way of life is borrowing against the well-beingof our children and their children. Globally, members ofrich societies, who currently consume so much of theEarth’s resources, are mortgaging the future security of thepoor countries of the world.

The answer, in principle, is to create an ecologicallysustainable culture, a way of life that meets the needs of thepresent generation without threatening the environmentallegacy of future generations. Sustainable living depends onthree strategies.

First, the world needs to bring population growth undercontrol. The current population of 6.4 billion is alreadystraining the natural environment. Clearly, the higher worldpopulation climbs, the more difficult environmental prob-

lems will become. Even ifthe recent slowing ofpopulation growth con-tinues, the world will have

8 billion people by 2050. Few analysts think that the Earth

can support this many people; most argue that we must holdthe line at about 7 billion, and some argue that we mustdecrease population in the coming decades (Smail, 2004).

A second strategy is to conserve finite resources. Thismeans meeting our needs with a responsible eye toward thefuture by using resources efficiently, seeking alternativesources of energy, and in some cases, learning to live with less.

A third strategy is to reduce waste. Whenever possible,simply using less is the best way to do this. But recyclingprograms are also part of the answer.

In the end, making all three of these strategies workdepends on a more basic change in the way we think aboutourselves and our world. Our egocentric outlook sets ourown interests as standards for how to live; a sustainable envi-ronment demands an ecocentric outlook that helps us seethat the present is tied to the future and that everyone mustwork together. Most nations in the southern half of theworld are underdeveloped, unable to meet the basic needs oftheir people. At the same time, most countries in the north-ern half of the world are overdeveloped, using more resourcesthan the Earth can sustain over time. Changes needed to cre-ate a sustainable ecosystem will not come easily. But the priceof not responding to the growing environmental deficit willcertainly be greater (Kellert & Bormann, 1991; Brown et al.,1993; Population Action International, 2000).

Finally, consider that the great dinosaurs dominated thisplanet for some 160 million years and then perished forever.Humanity is far younger, having existed for a mere 250,000years. Compared to the rather dimwitted dinosaurs, ourspecies has the gift of great intelligence. But how will we usethis ability? What are the chances that humans will continueto flourish 160 million years—or even 1,000 years—fromnow? The answer depends on the choices made by one of the30 million species living on Earth: human beings.

To read more about populationincrease, the environment, andglobal inequality, go to http://www.peopleandplanet.net

SummaryPopulation

1. Fertility and mortality, measured as crude birth rates andcrude death rates, are major factors affecting population size.In global terms, U.S. population growth is low.

2. Migration, another key demographic concept, has specialimportance to population increase in the United States and tothe growth of cities everywhere.

3. Demographers use age-sex pyramids to graphically show thecomposition of a population and to project populationtrends. Sex ratio is a society’s balance of females and males.

4. Historically, world population grew slowly because high birthrates were largely offset by high death rates. About 1750, ademographic transition began as world population rosesharply, mostly because of falling death rates.

5. Thomas Robert Malthus warned that population growthwould outpace food production, resulting in social calamity.Demographic transition theory, however, contends that tech-nological advances gradually slow population increase.

6. World population is expected to reach between 8 and 9 bil-lion by 2050. Such an increase will likely overwhelm manypoor societies, where most of the increase will take place.


ISB

N:0-536 -12116-8



Urbanization1. The first urban revolution began with the appearance of

cities about 8000 B.C.E. By the start of the common era, citieshad emerged in most regions of the world except for NorthAmerica.

2. Preindustrial cities have low-rise buildings, narrow, windingstreets, and personal social ties.

3. A second urban revolution began about 1750 as the Indus-trial Revolution propelled rapid urban growth in Europe. Thephysical form of cities changed as planners created wide, reg-ular streets to facilitate trade. The focus on commerce, as wellas swelling population, made urban life more anonymous.

4. Urbanism came to North America with Europeans, who set-tled in a string of colonial towns dotting the Atlantic coast-line. By 1850, hundreds of new cities had been founded fromcoast to coast.

5. By 1920, a majority of the U.S. population lived in urban areas,and the largest metropolises were home to millions of people.

6. About 1950, cities began to decentralize with the growth of sub-urbs and edge cities. Nationally, Sunbelt cities—but not mostolder Snowbelt cities—are increasing in size and population.

7. Rapid urbanization in Europe during the nineteenth centuryled early sociologists to contrast rural and urban life. Ferdi-nand Tönnies built his analysis on the concepts ofGemeinschaft and Gesellschaft, and Emile Durkheim devisedparallel concepts of mechanical solidarity and organic soli-darity. Georg Simmel claimed that the overstimulation of citylife produced a blasé attitude in urbanites.

8. At the University of Chicago, Robert Park believed that citiespermit greater social freedom. Louis Wirth saw large, dense,heterogeneous populations creating an impersonal and self-interested but tolerant way of life. Other researchers haveexplored urban ecology and urban political economy.

9. A third urban revolution is now occurring in poor countries,where most of the world’s largest cities will soon be found.

Environment1. A key factor affecting the natural environment is how human

beings organize social life. Therefore, ecologists study howliving organisms interact with their environment.

2. Societies increase the environmental deficit by focusing onshort-term benefits and ignoring the long-term consequencesof their way of life.

3. Our ability to alter the natural world lies in our capacity forculture. Humanity’s effect on the environment has increasedalong with the development of complex technology.

4. The “logic of growth” thesis supports economic development,claiming that people can solve environmental problems asthey arise. The opposing “limits to growth” thesis states thatsocieties must curb development to prevent eventual envi-ronmental collapse.

5. Environmental issues include disposing of solid waste andprotecting the quality of air and water. The supply of cleanwater is already low in some parts of the world.

6. Rain forests help remove carbon dioxide from the atmos-phere and are home to a large share of this planet’s livingspecies. Under pressure from commercial interests, theworld’s rain forests are now half their original size and areshrinking by about 1 percent annually.

7. Environmental racism is the pattern by which the poor, espe-cially minorities, suffer most from environmental hazards.

8. A sustainable environment does not threaten the well-being of future generations. Achieving this goal requires con-trolling world population, conserving finite resources, andreducing waste and pollution.

Key ConceptsPopulationdemography (p. 418) the study of human population

fertility (p. 418) the incidence of childbearing in a country’spopulation

crude birth rate (p. 418) the number of live births in a given yearfor every 1,000 people in a population

mortality (p. 419) the incidence of death in a country’s population

crude death rate (p. 419) the number of deaths in a given year forevery 1,000 people in a population

infant mortality rate (p. 419) the number of deaths among infantsunder one year of age for each 1,000 live births in a given year

life expectancy (p. 420) the average life span of a country’spopulation

migration (p. 420) the movement of people into and out of aspecified territory

sex ratio (p. 421) the number of males for every 100 females in anation’s population

age-sex pyramid (p. 422) a graphic representation of the age andsex of a population

demographic transition theory (p.423) the thesis that popula-tion patterns reflect a society’s level of technological development

zero population growth (p. 424) the level of reproduction thatmaintains population at a steady state

Urbanizationurbanization (p. 426) the concentration of humanity into cities


ISB

N:0

-536

-121

16-8



metropolis (p. 428) a large city that socially and economicallydominates an urban area

suburbs (p. 428) urban areas beyond the political boundaries ofa city

megalopolis (p. 429) a vast urban region containing a number ofcities and their surrounding suburbs

Gemeinschaft (p. 430) a type of social organization in which peo-ple are closely linked by kinship and tradition

Gesellschaft (p. 430) a type of social organization in which peoplecome together only on the basis of individual self-interest

urban ecology (p. 432) the study of the link between the physicaland social dimensions of cities

Environmentecology (p. 434) the study of the interaction of living organismsand the natural environment

natural environment (p. 434) the Earth’s surface and atmos-phere, including living organisms, air, water, soil, and otherresources necessary to sustain life

ecosystem (p. 434) a system composed of the interaction of allliving organisms and their natural environment

environmental deficit (p. 435) profound and long-term harm tothe natural environment caused by humanity’s focus on short-term material affluence

rain forests (p. 440) regions of dense forestation, most of whichcircle the globe close to the equator

global warming (p. 441) a rise in the Earth’s average temperaturedue to an increasing concentration of carbon dioxide in theatmosphere

environmental racism (p. 442) the pattern by which environ-mental hazards are greatest for poor people, especially minorities

ecologically sustainable culture (p. 444) a way of life that meetsthe needs of the present generation without threatening the envi-ronmental legacy of future generations

Critical-Thinking Questions1. What are fertility and mortality rates? Which one has been

more important in increasing global population?

2. Evaluate the environmental prediction of Thomas RobertMalthus. On balance, do you think he was more wrong ormore right? Why?

3. According to demographic transition theory, how does eco-nomic development affect population patterns?

4. According to Ferdinand Tönnies, Emile Durkheim, GeorgSimmel, and Louis Wirth, what characterizes urbanism as away of life? Note several differences in the ideas of thesethinkers.

Applications and Exercises

1. Here is an illustration of the problem of runaway growth(Milbrath, 1989:10): A pond has a single water lily growing onit. The lily doubles in size each day. In thirty days, it covers theentire pond. On which day does it cover half the pond? Discussthe implications of your answer for population increase.

2. Draw a mental map of a city familiar to you with as muchdetail of specific places, districts, roads, and transportationfacilities as you can. Compare your map with a published oneor, better yet, a map drawn by someone you know. Try toaccount for the differences.

3. Get a plastic trash bag, and carry it around with you for onefull day. Put everything you throw away in the bag. Afterward,

weigh what you have; multiply this amount by 365 to estimateyour yearly “trash factor.” Multiply this amount by 294 millionto estimate the annual waste of the entire U.S. population.

4. Packaged in the back of this new textbook is an interactiveCD-ROM that offers a variety of video and interactive reviewmaterials intended to help you better understand the materialcovered in this chapter. For this chapter, the CD-ROM con-tains a relevant clip from ABC News, an author’s tip video,interactive map animations, an interactive timeline, andflashcards with audio pronunciations of the more difficultwords.


ISB

N:0-536 -12116-8



Sites to Seehttp://www.prenhall.com/macionis

Visit the interactive Companion Website™ that accompanies thistext. Begin by clicking on the cover of your book. You will find achapter-by-chapter study guide, practice tests, suggested Weblinks, and links to other relevant material.

http://www.eclac.org

This site, created by the Economic Commission for Latin Americaand the Caribbean (part of the United Nations), provides statisticson population patterns for this region of the world. Most of thesite is available in both English and Spanish.

http://www.un.org/popin/wdtrends.htm

Want to learn more about global population trends? Read thisreport from the United Nations.

http://www.riotmanhattan.com/riotmanhattan/webcam.html

Watch big-city life from the comfort of your own home: This siteuses a Web camera showing the action on New York City’s FifthAvenue and Forty-Fifth Street. What can you learn from “people

watching” in this way? What does this observation not tell youabout urban life?

http://www.hud.gov

This is the Web site for the government’s Department of Housingand Urban Development.

http://www.sierraclub.orghttp://www.greenpeace.org

Here are two environmental sites, maintained by the Sierra Cluband Greenpeace, respectively. Visit the sites and see how these twoorganizations are similar to one another and how they differ.

http://www.urban.nyu.edu

New York University’s Taub Urban Research Center is on the Inter-net. Visit this site to survey recent research on urban issues.

http://www.wri.org/

The World Resources Institute provides information on the stateof the planet’s environment.

Investigate with Research Navigator™

Follow the instructions on page 32 of this textbook to access thefeatures of Research Navigator™. Once at the Web site, enter yourLogin Name and Password. Then, to use the Content Select™database, enter keywords such as “demography,” “urbanism,” and“global warming,” and the search engine will supply relevant and

recent scholarly and popular press publications. Use the New YorkTimes Search-by-Subject Archive to find recent news articlesrelated to sociology and the Link Library feature to find relevantWeb links organized by the key terms associated with this chapter.

Navigator.cResearch

R E S O U R C E S F O R C O L L E G E R E S E A R C H A S S I G N M E N T S

m


ISB

N:0

-536

-121

16-8


Documents

chapter fifteen Population, Urbanization, and Environmentmyresource.phoenix.edu/secure/resource/SOC120R3/... · 418 chapter 15 population, urbanization, and environment T here’s